Court No. - 45
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3206 of 2012 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Dharmendra & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State appellant/applicant and perused the material on record.
This application has been filed by the State appellant/applicant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgement and order dated 10.5.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2008 (State vs. Dharmendra and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2007, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Gajner, District- Kanpur Dehat by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ramabai Nagar, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above.
According to the prosecution story, the first information report was lodged on 21.07.2007 by the informant Shiv Mangal alleging that his minor daughter Lalita aged about 14 years, was enticed away by accused respondents on 09.07.2007 at around 7:00 pm. During the investigation, victim was recovered at railway station Tilaunchi on 22.7.2017 along with the accused respondent nos. 1 to 3. On the next date i.e. on 23.7.2007, she was sent for medical examination at District Women Hospital, Kanpur. As per the radiological report, the age of the victim was found above 18 years. The court below after scrutinizing and analyzing the entire evidence, has observed that the victim remained in company of the accused respondent Dharmendra for about two weeks and also went to Rajasthan, where she got married with him out of her own free will and wishes. Apart from this, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution story as she did not have any injury either on the private part or on her person. It has also come on record that she was adopted by her grand maternal uncle and the informant was not the legal guardian of the victim.
From perusal of the record, we do not find any factual or legal error in the assessment of evidence by the court below while acquitting the accused respondents. Moreover, the view taken by the court below is a possible view. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the order of acquittal.
We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant. The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected and, consequently the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Atmesh