The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence, consistency in witness statements, and the need for medical evidence to support the prosecution's case in criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the lower court record.

2. This application has been filed by the State of U.P. with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Maharajganj in Sessions Trial No.40 of 2004 arising out of Case Crime No.79 of 2001 whereby the accused-respondents namely Bismillah and Jafar Ali have been acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 376/323/506/313 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, District Maharajganj.

3. It has been argued by the learned A.G.A. for the State that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has delivered the judgment on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Further, it is argued simply on the basis of some delay in lodging the FIR, the trial court was not justified in giving benefit of doubt to the accused-respondents. The prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment is wholly illegal, perverse and against the weight of evidence on record, therefore, liable to be set aside and the State may be granted leave to file appeal.

4. The facts of the case are that the informant Tarun-Nisha wife of Hausil, resident of Gram Barwan Vidyapati (Tola), P.S. Kotwali, District Maharajganj had a daughter aged about 12 to 13 years who was enticed away by the respondent no. 1 Bismillah son of Iddi and his son-in-law Jafar Ali son of Abdul Hasan, respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 continued to sexually exploit her, as a result she became pregnant. The informant could know about it only five months after her daughter became pregnant. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 had threatened to the life of the informant and her daughter and under the said threat, he continued to sexually exploit her. Thereafter, Panchayat was held in the village which imposed punishment upon the respondent no.2, feeling aggrieved by which, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had beaten up the informant, in respect to which she lodged an FIR at P.S. concerned. Thereafter, to suppress the said incident, the respondent no. 1 Bismillah and Ganesh Pandit who was resident of Shikarpur had taken the informant and her daughter to Maharajganj for abortion of pregnancy. Even after that, the informant and his family members were continuously being harassed and were being threatened due to which informant and his entire family was extremely under fear. She had given an application in this regard to the S.P. Maharajganj and requested him to take necessary action in this matter.

5. On an application given by the informant (Exhibit Ka1) to S.P. Maharajganj, SHO Kotwali got the matter enquired into and thereafter a case was registered against both the respondents on 17.02.2001 at 18.10 hours being case crime no. 79 of 2001 under section 376, 506, 323, 313 IPC, chick FIR (Exhibit Ka-6) and its entry was made in G.D. at report no. 32 on the same day at 18.10 hours (Exhibit Ka-7).

6. Medical examination of the victim was conducted on 20.02.2001 at 12.30 hours at CHC, Maharajganj by Dr. Smt. Poonam Singh who prepared medical examination report (Exhibit Ka-2) and on the same day on the basis of report of radiologist, the said doctor expressed opinion about the age of the victim being 18-19 years approximately (Exhibit Ka-3). X Ray report is Exhibit Ka-4, X Ray plate is material Exhibit 1.

7. The Investigating Officer Shiv Murti Singh took over the investigation of this case and thereafter Lalta Prasad Mishra and Jai Narain also conducted the investigation in this case. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the respondents under section 376, 323, 506, 313 IPC which is Exhibit Ka-5.

8. The trial court framed charges against the respondent no. 1 under section 323, 506 and 313 IPC and against the respondent no. 2 under section 376, 323, 506 and 313 IPC to which the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried