State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko v. Monu Yadav And 3 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/learned AGA for the State.

The present appeal has been filed with prayer to quash the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Class No.-12, Sultanpur in S.T. No.158 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.211 of 2020 under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Baldiray, District- Sultanpur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court acquitted the respondent no.1- Monu Yadav on the basis of wrong premises. He has further submitted that FIR related to the incident dated 29.06.2020 and 24.07.2020 was lodged on 02.08.2020, thereafter, statements of victim as well as other witnesses were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and charge sheet was submitted under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. On the basis of aforesaid chargesheet, charges were framed by the trial court on 29.01.2022. He has further submitted that during the course of trial, victim was examined as PW-1 and her school's headmaster was also examined as PW-2 for verifying her school leaving certificate in order to ascertain her real date of birth. Investigating Officer/Sub-inspector Amrendra Singh was also examined as PW-3. He has further submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the statement of PW-1 and acquitted the respondent no.1. Therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

Considering the submission of learned AGA, going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the FIR related to the incident dated 29.06.2020 and 24.07.2020 was lodged on 02.08.2020. The investigation was conducted by Sub-inspector, Amrendra Singh and charge sheet was submitted by him, thereafter, charge was framed by the trial court under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. It is also evident that the victim was produced before the trial court as PW-1, and in her deposition, she categorically stated that on 29.06.2020, at about 7 PM, when she was going back after attending invitation at the house of Jaya Bahadur Verma, then on her way, respondent no.1- Monu Yadav stopped his motorcycle in front of victim and started molesting her. Thereafter, on her alarm, several villagers came on the spot, and the respondent no.1 ran away leaving behind his motorcycle. The villagers immediately made call to Police Control Room. On which, the Police responded and reached at the spot and took the motorcycle of the respondent no.1 into their custody. Thereafter, on 24.07.2020, brother of victim, namely Gyanchandra @ Pintu was beaten with lathi, Danda, kicks and punches by respondent no.1, Sandeep Yadav and Sandeep S/o Gherau. In the alleged incident, he received several injuries. Thereafter FIR for the said incident was lodged. Undoubtedly, site-plan related to the incident dated 24.07.2020 was not prepared by the Investigating Officer. It is also undisputed that neither Gyanchandra @ Pintu, who received injury, was examined before the trial court nor his injury report was placed before it.

As it is well settled that if the prosecution fails to establish the place of incident by producing site-plan, then the veracity of the offence will be doubtful. In such circumstances. trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent no.1 by appreciating the evidences in the proper manner.

Accordingly, the present leave to appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 V. Sinha