Back
2022 Supreme(All) 254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav, JJ.
State of U.P. – Appellant
Versus
Asha Ram - Respondent
Government Appeal No. - 1000120 of 2007
Decided On : 25-02-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri Vishwas Shukla, Additional Government Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that if two reasonable conclusions are possible based on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Headnote:
Cr.P.C. - Appeal against judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 5, District Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2006 - Sections 376/511 of IPC - Section 354 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the State against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving allegations of attempt to commit rape under Sections 376/511 of IPC. The victim, a 10-year-old girl, was allegedly taken away by the accused and an attempt to commit rape was made. The trial court concluded that only the offence under Section 354 IPC was committed by the accused respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented did not prove the charges under Sections 376/511 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. It also noted contradictions in the statements of witnesses and the absence of key witnesses mentioned in the FIR. The court upheld the trial court's decision to convict the accused under Section 354 IPC only.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges under Sections 376/511 IPC, contradictions in witness statements, and the absence of key witnesses mentioned in the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence, contradictions in witness statements, and the absence of key witnesses. It emphasized the principle that if two reasonable conclusions are possible based on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application seeking leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decision to convict the accused under Section 354 IPC only.
JUDGMENT :
Saroj Yadav, J.
1. This appeal along with application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the State-appellant against the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 5, District Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2006, under Sections 376/511 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC"), wherein the accused respondent has been held guilty and punished under Section 354 IPC in place of Sections 376/511 IPC.
2. Heard Sri Vishwas Shukla, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-appellant.
3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are :-
A First Information Report (in short "F.I.R.") was registered in pursuance of the order passed on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the complainant. It was alleged in the FIR that daughter of the complainant Km. “X” aged about 10 years was coming back to the village after putting sugarcane into the field on 21.11.2004 at about 12.30 PM during the day. When she reached near Devi Patan Bank, the accused respondent Asha Ram took her away and gone into the bushes behind the bank and made attempt to commit rape on her. The girl/victim raised noise then Radhey Shyam, Pappu, Rakesh and many other people of the village reached there, only then the victim could be saved. The complainant was on duty for administering Polio drops at a nearby School. So after hearing the noise raised by her daughter, he also reached there and came to know about the incident. He went to the Police Station but his FIR was not registered. He also moved an application to the Superintendent of Police, Gonda but no action was taken. Thereafter he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court and the Court passed the order, only then the FIR was registered against the accused respondent.
4. The case was investigated and charge sheet submitted against the accused-respondent. The Magistrate concerned after taking cognizance of the offence committed the case to Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused respondent. He denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove charges levelled against the accused respondent examined the victim as P.W. 1, complainant and father of the victim Mithai Lal as P.W. 2, brother of the victim Rakesh as PW 3, Constable Ram Kumar as PW 4 & Satish Kumar Misra Sub-inspector/Investigating Officer of the case as P.W. 5.
5. Necessary documents were also proved by the prosecution i.e. Exhibits 1 to 5. Thereafter statement of the accused respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that witnesses have deposed falsely and he has been implicated due to enmity. He also examined Mohd. Ishaq as D.W. 1 in defence.
6. Learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides on the basis of evidence available on record came to the conclusion that P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 father and brother of the victim respectively were not eye witnesses of the crime and that only offence under Section 354 IPC was committed by the accused respondent. The reasons for such conclusion have been given by the Trial Court that there are contradictions in the evidence of witnesses of facts and the independent witness mentioned in the FIR has not been examined. Old enmity has also been pleaded by the accused respondent. On the basis of evidence available on record, the Trial Court concluded that only offence under Section 354 IPC has been committed by the accused respondent and held guilty and punished accused-respondent accordingly.
7. Being aggrieved of this judgment, the present appeal has been preferred by the State.
8. Learned A.G.A. assailed the impugned judgment submitting that learned Trial Court discarded the evidence of the victim, complainant as well as brother of the victim without any proper and legal reason. Learned Trial Court did not apprec
