Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Munni Devi And Another on 27 November, 2024
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:186527-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 333 of 2024 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Munni Devi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
(Ref: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application) Heard.
Delay in filing the present appeal is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay is, accordingly, condoned.
Application stands allowed.
Ref: Appeal This appeal is by State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 10.4.2024, passed by the court below in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2019 (State Vs. Munni Devi and another), arising out of Case Crime No.92 of 2018, whereby accused-respondent no.1 has been acquitted under Section 323 IPC and accused-respondent no.2 has been acquitted under Sections 354D, 323, 376 IPC Police Station Muskara, District Hamirpur.
In the present case the victim is a married lady, who complained in her report that whenever she goes to attend the nature?s call or to ease herself the accused would often follow her and would pass on indecent gestures. When the complaint was made to the wife of the accused, his wife and other family members started fighting with the victim. On 6.9.2018 at about 6.50 the accused and his wife physically assaulted the victim. With these contents the written report made by the victim was registered as Case Crime No.92 of 2018 under Sections 354D, 323 IPC. The investigation proceeded in which the statement of victim was recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim stated that the accused came from behind and held her and also committed rape upon her. Threats were also extended and when the victim told such facts to her husband the son of the victim, working outside, returned and thereafter the complaint was made to the family members. The son of the victim was also threatened. Ultimately a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused under Sections 323, 354D, 376 IPC. Charges were framed by the court of Sessions after committal of case and once the accused denied the accusation, the trial commenced in the matter.
Prosecution in addition to documentary evidence has produced the victim as PW-1, whereas PW-2 is her husband. PW-3 is Dr. Hemant Kumar, who had examined the victim. PW-5 and PW-7 are formal police witnesses. The evidence produced by the prosecution has been confronted to the accused, who stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity and that no such incident, as is alleged, has actually taken place.
The trial court on the basis of evaluation of evidence led in the matter by the prosecution has come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused has not been established, beyond reasonable doubt. Thus aggrieved the State is before this Court.
We have heard Sri Surendra Singh, learned AGA for the State and have perused the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.
Admittedly the incident in the present case has occurred at 6.50 in the morning on 6.9.2018. The FIR has been registered on the same day. The medical examination of the victim has been conducted on the very next day, wherein no external or internal injuries have been found on the victim. The trial court has found material contradictions in the version of the prosecution witnesses, who all alleged that the victim was physically assaulted. In the medical examination of the victim no such injuries have been found. The trial court has otherwise found material improvements in the version of the victim, inasmuch as in the initial FIR the complaint is only with regard to indecent gestures being made against the victim by the accused, wherein in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has alleged rape. Since the initial version disclosed in the FIR has undergone improvement at the subsequent stages under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and apart from two family members there is no independent corroboration of the victim?s version, as such the trial court has raised a doubt with regard to credibility of the prosecution evidence in that regard.
It has also come on record that the wife of the co-brother of accused had previously lodged a criminal complaint against the son of the victim and proceedings in that regard were pending. The trial court, therefore, has also found substance in the defence case that false implication was made with an intent to pressurize the accused persons to withdraw their previous complaint.
The trial court has further noticed the statement of the husband and son of the victim, wherein also various contradictions have been found. Since the allegation of rape is a result of subsequent improvement, and has otherwise not been corroborated by the medical evidence, or by any independent witness, as such the trial court by granting benefit of doubt has acquitted the accused.
Law is settled that ordinarily a judgment of acquittal will not be interfered with, unless perversity or illegality is shown. The scope of interference by High Court in matters of acquittal by trial court has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561. Para 39 and 40 of the judgment are relevant for the present purposes and are reproduced hereinafter:-
"39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.
40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."
Upon evaluation of evidence so led in the matter, we find no perversity in the judgment so as to interfere with the findings returned by the court concerned, inasmuch as the conclusions drawn by the Judge concerned are clearly permissible in view of the evidence placed on record. No misreading or omission of evidence is pointed out, either. It cannot be said that only the view consistent with the guilt of accused is possible from the evidence on record. We, thus do not find any good ground to entertain the present appeal. The prayer made by the State for grant of leave is refused. The appeal, consequently, fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2024 RA