Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Renu Agarwal, J.
Buddhu Raidas – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 84 of 2002
Decided On : 24-03-2023
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. - 2021 SCC Online HP 870 - The court analyzed the evidence and determined that the prosecutrix was major at the time of the incident, voluntarily accompanied the accused, and had already married the accused. The conviction of the accused was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the elopement of a 13-year-old girl with the accused, leading to charges under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. The victim's age and consent were disputed, and medical evidence was presented to determine her age.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecutrix was major at the time of the incident, voluntarily accompanied the accused, and had already married the accused. The conviction of the accused was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Issues: The key issues included the determination of the victim's age, consent, and marital status, as well as the admissibility of evidence such as the school leaving certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on medical evidence to determine the victim's age and emphasized the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the need for reliable evidence. It also highlighted the principle that if two views are possible, the view in favor of the accused should be considered.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the accused was acquitted, and the conviction and sentencing by the trial court were set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released from jail, and bail bonds were to be furnished in compliance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 913 of 2001, Crime No. 62 of 2000 under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Gosaiganj, Lucknow whereby the accused appellant Buddhu Raidas has been convicted and sentenced under Section 363 I.P.C. with rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of fine, additional six months imprisonment, under Section 366 I.P.C. with rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of fine, additional imprisonment for six months and under Section 376 I.P.C. with rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of fine, additional six months rigorous imprisonment.
All the sentences were instructed to run concurrently.
2. In the guidelines of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the name of the victim is not disclosed in the present judgment and is being referred to as letter ‘X’.
3. Prosecution story in nut-shell is that the daughter of the complainant, aged about 13 years, had gone to fetch water from well on 29.03.2000 at about 10:00 PM and when she did not return in late night, the complainant-Ram Asrey started search of his daughter. The complainant came to know through Shri Ram Kori, son of Ram Autar and Sia Ram son of Ram Prasad that they have seen his daughter with Buddhu Raidas, Sunil and Nand Kishore going towards the road. The complainant believed that his daughter got enticed away by accused with the help of Ishwari, his wife and daughter. The prosecutrix is alleged to have took away two pairs of Payal, three golden nose pins, four silver Bichhias, one jug, one Thali, Kambal, Chaddar and Rs. 15,000/-cash with her. Having believed that Ishwari and his brother-in-law and Kishan had full knowledge of the whereabouts of his daughter, complainant-Ram Asrey made a written report on 02.04.2000 to S.O. Gosaiganj, Lucknow, on the basis of which a case was registered.
4. The investigation was conducted by the P.W.5-Uma Nath Tewari, Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement of witnesses, inspected the site of the incident and prepared the site plan. Prosecutrix was medically examined by P.W.3-Dr. Sikha Srivastava who prepared medical report. Thereafter, the statements of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 04.05.2000 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Buddhu Raidas, Sunil and Nand Kishore.
5. Learned Sessions Court framed the charges against the accused Buddhu Raidas, Sunil Kumar and Nand Kishore who abjured from the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. Prosecution adduced P.W. 1-Ram Asrey (complainant), P.W. 2-Victim (X), P.W. 3-Dr. Sikha Srivastava, P.W. 4-Dr. Ratna Pandey and P.W. 5-S.I. Uma Nath Tewari (Investigating Officer).
7. After recording of evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 10.12.2001. Accused denied all the allegation and evidence produced against them and stated that they are innocent and are falsely implicated due to previous enmity.
8. After hearing both the parties and perusal of record, learned Trial Court held the accused Buddhu Raidas guilty of offence punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376 IPC and acquitted accused Sunil Kumar and Nand Kishore of the allegation made against them.
9. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Pal, M.V.S. Chauhan and Satyendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that besides the victim (X), only one witness of fact i.e. P.W.-1 is produced in the Court to prove the prosecution’s version. P.W. 1-Ram Asrey (the complainant and father of the victim) who clearly asserted that his first marriage was solemnized when he was 14 years old and after 9 years, first issue was b
The judgment emphasizes the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal and the importance of properly evaluating evidence in an appeal against acquittal.
The court emphasized the necessity of proper age determination procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act, concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age as under 18, leading to ....
Proof of age – Such person who is supporting date of birth recorded in school leaving certificate has to disclose source of date of birth.
The testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases can be sufficient for conviction if corroborated by credible evidence, including medical reports.
The prosecution must prove a victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, and consent negates charges of kidnapping and rape when the victim willingly engages in a relationship.
The court upheld the conviction for abduction and rape based on testimonial and medical evidence, emphasizing the validity of medical age assessment in absence of primary documents.
The prosecution must establish the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt in cases under the POCSO Act; failure to provide adequate evidence leads to acquittal.
The conviction in sexual offences requires credible and reliable evidence, especially regarding the victim's age, and reliance solely on secondary evidence without primary proof is insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
