Point of law: if a witness during trial is intended to be contradicted by his previous statement made then his attention has to be drawn to those parts of the statement which are required to be used for the purpose of contradicting him, however, the provision contained in the second limb of Section 145 needs to be complied with, that is to say, the witness has to be confronted with his earlier statement made or reduced in writing.

JUDGMENT :

1. This application by the State of U.P. under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with the prayer to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-Ist, in Sessions Trial No. 4/2007 which arose out of Case Crime No. 32/2006, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the respondent-accused-Jitendra Kumar Yadav has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the I.P.C.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the informant-Ram Tej Verma lodged an First Information Report on 01.05.2006 at Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar with the assertion that his daughter (hereinafter referred to as the ‘victim’) was student of Class-11 in Jhinka Devi Balika Inter College, Fattepur, Belabagh, who at 06.30 a.m. on 21.04.2006 had gone to attend her school, however, she had not come back and accordingly the informant made all endeavours to trace her and further that his daughter had been enticed away by the accused-Jitendra Kumar Yadav son of Tribhuwan Yadav who is resident of his village. In the F.I.R., it was also stated that that Raja Ram Verma and Brij Lal Verma and others had seen the victim being taken away by the accused.

3. On the basis of said F.I.R., Case Crime No. 32 of 2006, under Sections 363, 366, 376, I.P.C., at Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar was registered and after investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-Jitendra Kumar Yadav, under Sections 363, 366, 376, I.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar took cognizance and summoned the accused. On appearance of the accused, the case was committed to the sessions court. Charges against the accused were framed under Sections 363, 366, 376, I.P.C. who pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. Accordingly, the trial commenced.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined seven prosecution witnesses, namely, the informant-Ram Tej Verma (P.W.1), the victim (P.W.2), Brij Lal Verma (P.W.3), Raja Ram (P.W.4), Ramesh Chandra, Investigating Officer (P.W.5), Rama Devi Verma, Principal of the School (P.W.6) and Dinesh Kumar Bhaskar, Chief Pharmacist, District Women Hospital, Ayodhya (P.W.7). The prosecution also placed certain documentary evidences including statement of the victim recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and her medical report.

5. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. who denied the allegations and stated that he had falsely been implicated. However, no evidence by the defence was led.

6. Learned trial court considered the evidence available on record and finding material contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded before the court and the one recorded by her before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and also finding various discrepancies in the statement of the other witnesses has given a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused of the charges for which the accused was tried giving him benefit of doubt.

7. Seeking leave to appeal in this case, learned Additional Government Advocate has argued that the prosecutrix herself in her deposition before the court has completely supported the case of the prosecution, however, learned trial court by not finding her evidence credible has committed manifest error and thus, it is a case where leave to appeal should be granted.

8. It has further been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the State that reliance placed by the learned trial court on the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164, Cr.P.C. in preference to her deposition made before the court is an approach adopted by the learned trial court which cannot b