Advocates:
['SUDHAKAR SHUKLA', '', 'DIWAKAR SHUKLA', 'SHYAM SINGH SOMVANSHI', 'G A']

-1

AFR

RESERVED

In Chamber

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3003 of 2018

Appellant :- Gore @ Sushil

Respondent :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhakar Shukla,Diwakar Shukla,Shyam Singh

Somvanshi,Sudhakar Shukla

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

1.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

4.5.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4,

Fatehpur, in Special Trial No.37 of 2013 (State of UP vs. Gore @

Sushil) arising out of Case Crime No.347 of 2013 under Sections

376, 354, 452, 506 IPC & Section 4 Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as 'the POCSO

Act, 2012'), P.S.-Bindaki, District-Fatehpur, whereas the accused-

appellant -Gore @ Sushil was awarded 3 years R.I. under Section

354 IPC, 5 years R.I. under Section 452 IPC, 3 years RI under

Section 506 (2) IPC and 10 years RI under Section 4 of the POCSO

Act, 2012, along with fine.

2.

The brief facts of this appeal are that on 23.10.2013, the

father of victim Ram Sanehi lodged an FIR at Police Station-

Bindaki with averments that he resides in Delhi and does private

service and he rarely comes at his native house at Fatehpur. At his

residence, his wife resides with four daughters, one son and

informant's aged mother. Gore son of late Pramod Kumar, who is of

the same village often comes to the house of informant with

intention he pressurize to make marital relationship with his elder

daughter Kanchan, but when she refused to marry with him, he

used to take his younger daughter, the victim for getting treatment

at Kanpur as the victim was having white-spot on her leg. During

-2

the course of taking her to Kanpur for treatment, Gore committed

rape with the victim and threatened her not to tell anybody,

therefore, victim remained silent and Gore committed rape many

times. Informant's elder daughter Kanchan alone ran away Mumbai

and later on recovered from there.

3.

Accused-appellant Gore @ Sushil was charged by the learned

trial court under Sections 376, 452, 354, 506 (2) IPC and Section 4

of the POCSO Act, 2012. On finding guilty, learned trial court

convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 452, 354, 506

(2) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Aggrieved with the

judgment of learned trial court, the appellant has preferred this

appeal.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the

State and perused the record.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in this case,

accused has been falsely implicated. In medical examination, there

is no corroboration of rape with the victim. It is argued that only

motive behind the false implication of the appellant was that

victim's parents wanted to marry their elder daughter Kanchan with

appellant, but Kanchan fled away to Mumbai and when she was

recovered, appellant refused to marry her. Due to this refusal, the

accused was falsely implicated in this case.

6.

Per contra, learned AGA argued that prosecution witnesses

has supported the prosecution case. Victim was just 13 years of age,

she has supported her version in her statement under Section 164

Cr.P.C. and appellant has rightly been convicted by the learned trial

court.

7.

Learned counsel for the appellant advanced arguments at

-3

length. First of all, it is argued that there was inordinate delay in

lodging the FIR in this case. No date, time and place of occurrence

is given in first information report by the informant. Victim's

statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the

Investigating Officer after one month of filing FIR. First

Information Report was lodged after three months of the alleged

occurrence and no explanation is given by the prosecution for

causing so mach delay in filing the FIR.

8.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that this delay in

filing the FIR was fatal for prosecution case because there was

enough time of three months with the informant a