(State v. Anand Sagar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.1
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:119488-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 44 of 2024 Appellant :- Shardanand Ram Respondent :- State Of Up 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey,Pravin Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kumar Dhananjay Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. This appeal is by the informant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.11.2023, passed by the court below in Sessions Trial No.110 of 2020 (State Vs. Anand Sagar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.125 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC, Section 5/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Maniyar, District Ballia, in so far as accused appellants Ajit Yadav, Mukesh Yadav and Rajendra Yadav have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them in Section 376(3), 120B IPC, Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. 2. This Court at the stage of initial hearing issued notices to the
Facts
accused persons and also called for the lower court records. The lower court records have been received and have been extensively examined by the Court with the assistance of the counsel for the parties in order to determine as to whether the appeal merits admission or requires summary rejection in terms of Section 384 Cr.P.C. 3. The case of the informant-appellant is that he is a resident of Panicha, District Ballia. He had gone to a temple on 16.10.2019 and when he returned at about 5.00 PM he found the victim (informant’s grand father) missing. On inquiry and necessary search the victim could not be traced. The victim is a student of class 11th and she was a minor being 15 1 of 5 year old. On these allegations FIR was initially lodged under Section 363 IPC at Police Station Maniya, District-Ballia against unknown persons. The investigation proceeded and the victim was ultimately traced, whereafter her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The victim was medically examined also. Upon conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the main accuseds Anand Sagar and Ajit Yadav under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506, 120B IPC, Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act. Accused Mukesh Yadav and Rajendra Yadav were later summoned during the course of trial. The statement of the victim and other witnesses have been recorded during the course of trial, whereafter the main accused Anand Sagar has been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. The other accused persons have been granted benefit of doubt and consequently acquitted. 4. The informant-appellant is aggrieved by the acquittal of the three accused one of whom, namely Ajit Yadav was charge-sheeted, whereas Mukesh Yadav and Rajendra Yadav were summoned during the course of trial. 5. From the statement of the victim, PW-1 as well as the evidence brought on record it transpires that at about 7.00 PM on 16.10.2019, nobody was present in the family and the father of the victim was admitted in a hospital at Jaipur. Victim’s mother had also gone to look after the ailing father. The grandfather of the victim, who happens to the informant and the present appellant had gone to a temple. The victim has alleged that accused persons came to her house and demanded her high school certificate. Accused Anand Sagar on the threat of a knife took her high school certificate; snatched her mobile phone and the three other accused forcibly took her on a motorcycle. The accused persons had arrived on two motorcycles. The accused persons took the victim to Ballia, whereafter she was subjected to sexual assault by all the accused persons. The victim was then taken by accused Anand Sagar by train to 2 of 5 Delhi where she was kept at Bahadurgarh in a room for six days. Accused Anand Sagar returned after six weeks but the victim was left behind and she somehow escaped from the cluthes of accused Ajit Yadav and returned to Ballia. The medical examination of the victim has been conducted by PW-4 on 21.11.2019. The victim was found to be carrying pregnancy of six weeks and three days. No injuries, however, were found on the victim. 6. The trial court has elaborately considered the evidence of witnesses as also various reports and documents on record and has found the offence in question to have been committed by accused Anand Sagar. The trial court has found that the victim was consistent in implicating the accused Anand Sagar as being the perpetrator of offence. So far as the minority of the victim is concerned a finding has been returned that prosecution has not been able to establish that victim was below 16 years of age yet she was not found to be above 18 years, therefore, the victim has been treated as a minor but the offence under Section 376(3) IPC has not been found to be attracted. 7. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that in the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has implicated accused Anand Sagar for the offence. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has implicated accused Anand Sagar and Ajit Yadav both as being the persons who committed sexual assault on her. We have perused the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which clearly shows that only two persons were implicated therein when the statement of the victim was recorded before the Magistrate. 8. Attention of the Court has been invited to the statement of the victim before the Court where she has also implicated one Bhola Verma also but has later stated that Bhola Verma was implicated on account of pressure exercised by the police. 9. Trial court has found material contradictions in the version of the victim, inasmuch as her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. , 164 Cr.P.C. 3 of 5 as well as the statement made before the court are not consistent. At various stages different versions have been disclosed by the victim. What has however been consistent on part of the victim is the implication of accused Anand Sagar. 10. The inconsistencies in the statement of the victim has been specifically dealt with by the trial court and it has been found that at various stages the victim has made material improvements to include more persons as being the perpetrator of offence even though such persons were not initially implicated in her statement made before the Magistrate under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 11. From the perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as her statement made before the Court it does appear that the victim has not been consistent in implicating the accused persons except for accused Anand Sagar, who has already been convicted and sentenced, as per above. The role of other accused persons have been found limited to the offence under Section 366 IPC but the offence under Section 376 IPC has not been found proved against them on account of inconsistent stand of the victim. 12. 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. 13. Upon evaluation of the evidence in its entirety from the lower court record and upon appraisal of the judgment of the court of Sessions, we find that acquittal of accused Ajit Yadav, Mukesh Yadav and Rajendra Yadav under Section 376 IPC as well as Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act is a permissible view and just because a different view could be taken in the matter would not be a ground to interfere with the aquittal of these accused persons under the aforesaid sections. 14. We, therefore, find no force in the challenge laid by the informant to the acquittal of the three accused under Section 376 IPC. To that extent 4 of 5
Legal Reasoning
we find that appeal raises no triable issues. In such circumstances we find that no perversity is shown in the judgement, which may persuade this Court to influence in the judgment of acquittal. The appeal, consequently, fails and is dismissed. 15. It is made clear that any observation of this Court in the present appeal would have no bearing so far as the appeal filed by the accused persons against their conviction in other sections or the conviction of accused Anand Sagar is concerned and all available arguments would be open to be raised and dealt with independently, on its own merits and in accordance with law. 16. All connected appeals since are cognizable by a learned Single Judge, they shall be placed before the concerned Court and the lower court records of the present appeal would be placed by the office in the connected cases. Order Date :- 25.7.2024 RA 5 of 5