Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, JJ.
Akhilesh Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.3179 of 2019
Decided on : 21-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anwar Ali, Ashwani Kumar Rai, Mahesh Prasad Yadav, Sanjai Kumar Pandey
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, which was not achieved due to the lack of evidence and the subsequent denial of the incident by the victim.
Headnote:
POCSO Act - Rape - Section 376 IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the charges under section 376 IPC read with section 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The judgment highlighted the lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt, including the victim's subsequent denial of the incident and the absence of a DNA test report to establish parentage of the child.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appeal of an accused appellant who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for rape under section 376 IPC and sections 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The victim, a 15-year-old girl, became pregnant, and the accused appellant was charged based on the allegations made by the victim's brother.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the lack of evidence, including the victim's subsequent denial of the incident, the absence of injuries on the victim, and the failure to establish the parentage of the child through a DNA test report.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony, the absence of evidence to support the prosecution's case, and the determination of the victim's age at the time of the alleged incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt, including the victim's subsequent denial of the incident, the absence of injuries on the victim, and the failure to establish the parentage of the child through a DNA test report.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the accused appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside. The accused appellant was ordered to be set free, subject to compliance with section 437-A Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is by the accused appellant challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 15.03.2019, passed by the I Additional Session Judge, Ballia in Session Trial No. 30 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Akhilesh Ram) arising out of Case Crime No.347 of 2015 Police Station Sukhpura, District Ballia, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under section 376 IPC read with sections 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act with fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of fine he is to undergo six months imprisonment and has also been convicted and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment under section 506 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of fine he is to further undergo one month imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
2. Record reveals that a First Information Report came to be lodged on 07.07.2015 as Case Crime No.347 of 2015 under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Sukhpura, District Ballia by the first informant Prabhunath Paswan, who happens to be the brother of the victim, with the allegation that he is a resident of village Dhanidhara, Police Station Sukhpura, District Ballia and is a labourer and was out of village for about 6-7 months in connection with work. Alongwith his aged parents his sister (victim) aged 15 years were residing in the village. It is alleged that under well thought out strategy the accused appellant aged 25 years subjected the victim to rape and on account of threats extended to the family members no report was lodged by them. The victim became pregnant and is carrying pregnancy of five months. When the accused appellant was confronted his entire family joined him in threatening the victim and the informant and as no action was being taken by the local police F.I.R. was requested to be lodged for necessary action in the matter.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR lodged the investigation proceeded. The victim was medically examined by the Medical Officer at Ladies Hospital, Ballia. In the medico legal report and supplementary report dated 08.07.2015 (Ex.Ka.2 and Ex.Ka.3) no internal injury was found on the victim, although pregnancy of 28 weeks 4 days was noticed in it. In the radiological report age of the victim has been determined as 18 years.
4. During investigation the statement of the victim under sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After recording the statements of other witnesses the investigation concluded with submission of charge sheet against the accused appellant, on which the Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the court of sessions. Charges accordingly were framed against the accused which he denied and consequently the trial commenced.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the charges levelled under section 376 IPC read with section 3 & 4 of POCSO Act against accused appellant has produced documentary evidence in the form of statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex.Ka.1, medico legal report as Ex.Ka.2, supplementary medico legal report as Ex.Ka.3, written report as Ex.Ka.4, charge sheet as Ex.Ka.5, F.I.R. as Ex.Ka.7 and site plan with index as Ex.Ka.6.
6. In addition to above the prosecution has adduced oral testimony of victim as PW-1, Dr. Sangam Singh as PW-2 who has conducted the medical examination of victim, Nand Lal Paswan (PW-3) who is the uncle of victim, Prabhunath Paswan (PW-4) who is the first informant and brother of the victim and Suresh Singh as PW-5, who is the investigating officer.
7. PW-1, who is the victim, in her examination in chief has supported the prosecution case by stating that on the date of incident her parents had gone to her relatives place. Her two elder sisters were already married and husband of one of the sisters had also died. The victim claims to be illiterate and has alleged that between her family and the family of co-accused Bindu a
