Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Nagendra Dhar Mishra & 2 Others on 24 October, 2019
Author: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 10 Case :- U/S 378 CR.P.C. No. - 171 of 2019 Applicant :- State of U.P. Opposite Party :- Nagendra Dhar Mishra & 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
The State has preferred this application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment/order dated 25.07.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Pratapgarh, acquitting the respondents from charges under sections 376, 506, 313 & 323 IPC in Sessions Trial No.566 of 2015.
According to the prosecution story, the F.I.R. was lodged with the police stating that the prosecutrix was minor and on the date of occurrence an offence of rape was committed on her during night hours by one Ajay Kumar Mishra and Nagendra Dhar Mishra forcibly within the precincts of a temple situated near the house of prosecutrix. The accused person had threatened the prosecutrix not to disclose it to anyone and in the event of disclosure, she was threatened of dire consequences. It was also alleged that due to the act of rape the prosecutrix became pregnant and upon the F.I.R. being lodged even the complainant was extended threats.
The F.I.R. further alleged termination of pregnancy under a threat. It was also stated that on account of threatening conditions, the F.I.R. was not registered timely despite approaching the police authorities. Charge sheet was filed against the respondents only and it appears that in the absence of any evidence having been found against Ajay Kumar Mishra he was not chargesheeted, whereas charge sheet against Nagendra Dhar Mishra, Janki Devi and Smt. Neelam Mishra was filed under section 376, 506, 313 & 323 IPC. Only three witnesses were produced by the prosecution, namely, complainant as PW-1, the medical officer as PW-2 and the victim (prosecutrix) as PW-3.
In the normal course, the evidence of prosecutrix alone is sufficient for conviction of an accused person provided that such a testimony is unimpeachable and charge is proved beyond doubt. In the present case, however, the evidence of prosecution has been doubted for the reason more than one.
The trial court while discussing the evidence on record has recorded categorical findings which reflect an element of doubt against all the respondents for the commission of the offences mentioned above. Not only that the F.I.R., was lodged after a considerable delay but there did not exist a plausible justification for lodging the F.I.R. with delay. The F.I.R. also did not set out a categorical identity of the place where the offence was committed.
The prosecution failed to prove the offence of Section 376 and 506 IPC against the accused Narendra Dhar Mishra and likewise offence under Section 506 IPC against the accused Nelam Mishra and that of Section 313 and 323 IPC against Smt. Janki Devi. Smt. Janki Devi and Neelam Mishra were not named in the F.I.R. for being involved in the termination of pregnancy. The inconsistency in the evidence was apparent which has resulted into the benefit of doubt that was extended to the accused persons. The ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused persons on the face of the evidence recorded before the trial court were not met. In absence of a conclusive proof against the respondents for the commission of offence, they have been thus acquitted.
It is well settled that for conviction in criminal offences charge has to be established beyond doubt and an element of doubt once surfaced looking to the evidence on record, does not leave any option but to grant the benefit thereof to the accused persons. The shaky evidence led before the trial court has also met with the same fate resulting into the acquittal of the respondents.
Learned AGA has failed to point out any evidence led by the prosecution on the basis of which the trial court could not have arrived at the conclusion drawn in the impugned judgment. The trial court has recorded cogent reasons for arriving at such a conclusion.
The jurisdiction exercised by the trial court does not suffer from any error of law on the face of record and the inferences drawn by the trial court are just and proper.
Thus, we do not find any ground to grant the leave to appeal.
The application for leave to appeal is, therefore, rejected.
In view of the rejection of the leave to appeal, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.10.2019
fahim/akhilesh
[A. R. Masoodi, J.] [D. K. Upadhdyaya, J.]