Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... vs Karamchandra Gupta And Another on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 1 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 21 of 2022 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Respondent :- Karamchandra Gupta And Another Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
1. This appeal along with application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the State-appellant against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2021 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-1), Balrampur in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2016, State Versus Karamchandra Gupta, arising out of Case Crime No. 986 of 2015, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur, whereby the Court below acquitted the accused respondent of the charges framed.
2. Heard Ms. Roohi Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-appellant.
3. Learned A.G.A. assailed the impugned judgment submitting that learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent without appreciating the evidence in right perspective. Learned trial Court did not pay any attention to the eye-witness account and considered the minor contradictions as fatal. Hence the impugned judgment and order is illegal, not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside and the accused respondent should be punished under Section 376 IPC.
4. Considered the submissions advanced by learned A.G.A., and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court and also the record.
5. The First Information Report (in short "F.I.R.") was lodged by the complainant stating that on 08.12.2015 at about 9 PM. when his wife and daughter (victim) aged about 18 years went out of house to ease themselves, one Karamchandra, resident of the same village, came there running to the door of his house and dragged his daughter and gagged her mouth and committed rape on her. When his daughter cried, his wife Kamrunisha rushed towards the lane, then the accused scuffled with his wife. Many persons of the village reached at the spot and the accused ran away. At the time of incident, the complainant was not present in the house and when he returned home, his wife narrated all the facts.
6. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case and also got exhibited relevant documents.
7. The accused respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and the evidence produced by the prosecution.
8. Learned trial Court did not find the statement of witnesses of facts including the statement of P.W. 2 (victim) and her mother Kamrunisha, who has been examined as P.W. 3 trustworthy. The learned trial Court also noted that in the medical examination, no injury of any kind was found on the body of the victim and her age was found about 19 years. The learned trial Court did not find the evidence of witnesses of facts reliable and acquitted the accused. The victim in her cross-examination has stated that when the accused was committing rape on her, her mother was present but she did not object for that in any manner. She knew the accused since long. There are contradictions in the statements of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and also what has been written in the F.I.R. The victim in her cross-examination has further stated that she had good relations with Karamchandra (accused-respondent) and he never came to her house nor committed the incident. Her mother also levelled allegations of theft against Karmachandra (accused respondent) thereafter levelled allegation of rape on him, in fact, no rape was committed.
9. According to the medical examination, age of the victim has been found as 19 years and neither internal nor external injury was found on the body of the victim. The victim herself has given contradictory evidence and clearly denied the committal of rape on her by the accused in her cross-examination.
10. The aforesaid analysis makes it clear that prosecution failed to prove charges levelled under Section 376 IPC against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Learned A.G.A. could not evince that the findings given by the Court below while acquitting the accused-respondent were factually or legally incorrect.
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Achhar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2021 SCC Online HP 870 in this regard has laid down as under:-
"It is thus a well crystalized principle that if two views are possible, the High Court ought not to interfere with the trial Court's judgment. However, such a precautionary principle cannot be overstretched to portray that the "contours of appeal" against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC are limited to seeing whether or not the trial Court's view was impossible. It is equally well settled that there is no bar on the High Court's power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal11. This Court has held in a catena of decisions (including Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, 42. State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582 20-21 and Raveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 SCC Online SC 869, 11.) that the Cr.P.C does not differentiate in the power, scope, jurisdiction or limitation between appeals against judgments of conviction or acquittal and that the appellate Court is free to consider on both fact and law, despite the self-restraint that has been ingrained into practice while dealing with orders of acquittal where there is a double presumption of innocence of the accused".
13. We do not find any factual or legal error in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court while acquitting the accused-respondent under Section 376 IPC. Moreover, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view. Hon'ble Apex Court recently in Geeta Devi Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 57, has rehashed the principle of law laid down in Chandrappa Versus State of Karnataka (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 162, which is as under:-
"If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."
14. The trial Court has given valid, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the order of acquittal. For the aforesaid reasons, there appears no ground to disturb the acquittal of the respondent/accused under Section 376 IPC recorded by the trial Court.
15. We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the appellant. The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected. The appeal is also dismissed.
(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 21.10.2022 Arun