Court No. - 45
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4564 of 2012 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Sita Ram Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the trial court's judgment on record.
This application has been filed by the appellant/applicant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgement and order dated 07.08.2012, passed in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 1999, arising out of Case Crime No. 158 of 1997, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station Khekada, District Meerut by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Meerut, whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above.
This is a case of circumstantial evidence, as there is no direct evidence of the alleged crime. According to the prosecution, the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 03.08.1997, however, the FIR was lodged after a lapse of seven days i.e. 10.08.1997 by father of prosecutrix Km. Anuradha, aged about 14 years with the allegation that on 03.08.1997 at about 7.30 p.m. his daughter, who had gone to ease herself, did not return. He further alleged in the FIR that Jagvansh and Rambhool have seen the prosecutrix while she was going and the persons namely Pintu, Rajiv and Bobby all resident of Saidpur Kalan and accused respondent Sita Ram, who was residing in the house of Brij Bhushan for the last one year, had followed her. When informant reached his house in the night, he was informed by family members that Km. Anuradha has not returned. On this, informant along with 20-25 persons of the village had searched for her relentlessly in Jungle and found her Chunni and Sleeper in the field of Jwar, but could not find her.
The court below, after scanning and analyzing the material evidence on record, has observed that there is no evidence on record to show that any one had seen the accused respondent committing the rape of the prosecutrix. It has been further observed that there is material contradictions in the FIR version, statement of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., as on the one hand prosecutrix in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution version but on the other hand in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that Pintu, Bobby, Rajiv, Sunil and Anil have taken her in their vehicle and dropped her at Hapur bus stand where at about 9.15 she met the accused Sita Ram with whom she went to his home where his parents told him to send the prosecutrix to her home, but she refused to return home and proposed to marry with Sita Ram. The parents of accused Sita Ram did not agree to it and ousted them from their house. After that, the prosecutrix and accused Sita Ram had given an application for performing court marriage on 12.08.1997 in the court. She further stated that she is High School pass and she out of her own sweet will had gone with accused Sita Ram. Perusal of statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. shows that she was a consenting party and she also claimed herself to be major and was also sent to Nari Niketan. However, during the course of trial, she took a 'U' turn and made allegations against the accused respondent. However, she has admitted hat she got married with accused respondent and also admitted to have signed on the papers which were submitted before the court for the purpose of court marriage. The court, after analyzing the evidence has found her to be major. No injury either on private part or her person was found. The record further shows that she remained in the company of accused respondent for more than one and a half month but she did not make any hue and cry which shows that she was a consenting party.
On a careful perusal of the judgment and record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable. Simply because another view might have been taken of the evidence provides no ground for interfering with the order of acquittal unless the view taken by the trial judge is not a possible view.
The Court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned judgment and order. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity. On the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge was not a reasonably possible view.
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 :- 27.3.2018 IrfanUddin