High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:126685-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7524 of 2024 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Muzammil S/O Jameel Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Facts
This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 9.4.2024, passed by the court below in Special Sessions Trial No.09 of 2018 (State Vs. Muzammil), arising out of Case Crime No.501 of 2017, under Sections 376, 377, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur. The informant in the present case is the victim, who claims that her husband died about one and a half year prior to the incident. She has three small children. She works as a labourer to sustain herself. About a year back she had gone to village Dautai, Police Station Garhmukhteshwar, for plucking peas where the accused kept staring at her with bad intention. When she was returning from work in the evening the accused held her hand and dragged her inside the fields. The accused asserted that he knew that informant's husband has died and she belongs to Scheduled Caste and, thereafter, he started outraging her modesty. After protest the accused raped her on the threat of firearm. Victim was also told that in case she wants to to see her children alive she must obey the wishes of the accused or else she would suffer. It is on this threat that the accused continued to sexually exploit the victim and the victim for the fear of her children kept tolerating. The accused appellant also committed unnatural offence upon her. With these allegations First Information Report came to be lodged as Case Crime No.501 of 2017 under Sections 376, 377, 506 IPC and 3(2) (va) SC/ST Act. On the basis of investigation conducted in the matter ultimately a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under the aforesaid sections. Charges were framed by the Court and the trial commenced after the accused denied the charges.
Legal Reasoning
and just because a different view could be taken would ordinarily not be a ground for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal. In such circumstances we find that neither any triable issue is raised before us in this appeal nor any perversity is shown, which may persuade this Court to grant leave to assail the judgment of acquittal. The appeal, consequently, fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 6.8.2024 RA
Arguments
In addition to the documentary evidence in the nature of written report; statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; medical evidence etc. the prosecution has produced the victim as PW-1, who has fully supported the prosecution case. She has been consistent in saying that the accused threatened her and for the sake of safety of her children she continued to suffer the sexual assault at the hands of the accused for almost a year. Prosecution has then produced Smt. Rajni as PW-2, who has turned hostile. Smt. Neha, who happens to be the niece of the victim has been produced as PW-3. She has fully supported the prosecution case. In fact her statement goes beyond the allegations made against the accused by the victim- informant. The doctor has been produced as a witness, who has proved medical report according to which no external or internal injuries have been found on the victim. The evidence led by the prosecution in the matter has been confronted to the accused for recording his statement under Section 131 Cr.P.C., who alleged that he has been falsely implicated and that the evidence is not reliable. Trial court has examined the evidence placed on record and has found the testimony of the victim not to be reliable. For such purposes the Court of Sessions has relied upon the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she told the Magistrate that she knew the accused for the last about one and a half year and visited his house 3-4 times. However, before the Court she denied having said so. No person living nearby has otherwise come forward to support the prosecution case nor any statement of independent person has been recorded. The testimony of the victim has been elaborately examined by the Court of Sessions. Reference has been made to her statement where she stated that on the date of incident there were others including Kausal, Pushpa etc, who had gone to work with her. When she was returning at about 5.00 PM she was with other ladies, who had gone to work. However, neither statement of the co-workers have been recorded nor the victim could satisfactorily explain as to how the incident could occur when she was in the company of several ladies. The trial court has drawn adverse inference for the reason that if the victim was in the company of others, while returning from work, it was improbable that one person could simply grab her and commit sexual assault upon her. None of the other co-workers have otherwise been produced in evidence and no reason have been disclosed for not doing so. The Court has also highlighted the fact that none of the family members or friends were even informed of the incident for almost one and a half year by the victim. She has further stated that when the accused used to visit her house she never made any protest. In her testimony the victim has also admitted that the accused used to telephone her and she would engage in sweet talks for long hours and the charges of telephone were borne by the accused. The trial court has drawn adverse inference on account of such fact, inasmuch as if the victim was subjected to sexual assault by the accused there was no reason why she would talk for hours with him. Similarly the testimony of PW- 3 has been found unreliable by the court as her version has been found wholly improbable. Having examined the submissions advanced by the State counsel we find substance in the reasoning assigned by the Court of Sessions to doubt the veracity of the victim’s testimony, inasmuch as it is difficult to comprehend that a man would continue to commit sexual assault for one and a half year without the victim raising any protest or any neighbour etc coming to know of it, particularly when the victim is a mother of three children and could have raised a grievance earlier. The inference that relationship was consensual, in such circumstances, also cannot be discounted. It is otherwise on record that the victim received compensation on account of lodging of the report since she belongs to Scheduled Caste. We have been taken through the judgment by the learned AGA, who submits that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and that the findings returned by the court below are perverse. However, having carefully examined the judgment of the court below and upon its examination we find that the view taken by the court below is clearly a permissible view, in the facts of the case,