High Court

arising out of Case Crime No.462 of 2019, under Sections 363, 354-Ka I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur, whereby the trial court has acquitted both the accused persons-respondents no.1 and 2.

3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 07.12.2019 stating that two unidentified persons riding a motorcycle had enticed away the informant's daughter aged about 14 years, who was studying in Class-9. On the basis of the aforesaid information an F.I.R. No.462 of 2019 was lodged against two unknown persons.

4. During trial the informant was examined as PW-1 who stated that two unknown persons had taken away his daughter on a motorcycle and it was seen by his younger brother Hansraj. Hansraj told about the incident to the informant and the informant gave a written complaint to the police. Thereafter, the police came to the informant's house and called Vijay Kumar Upadhyay, then it transpired that Anil Upadhyay had enticed away the informant's daughter daughter. Anil Upadhya is a relative of Vijay Kumar Upadhyay. The informant went with the police and recovered his daughter from the village of Anil Upadhyay. The victim told that both the accused persons had enticed her away. She did not know as to why had they had enticed her away.

5. The victim was examined as PW-2 and she stated that she and her sister had gone to attend a feast after Ramayan. While both of them were standing there, Anil Upadhyay came there and Diwakar followed him. They talked to the victim's mother and after the victim's father scolded them they went away. Thereafter the victim had gone to attend the call of nature along with another girl Rani, when both the accused persons tied her face with gamccha and they took her on a motorcycle. The respondent no.1-Anil Upadhyay gave his number to the other girl Rani and turned her away. The accused persons took her to a jungle and asked her to stay with them. They had caught her hold with evil intention. The victim ran away and reached her nearby village. Her father and police took her to the village.

6. During cross-examination the complainant stated that he had never met the accused persons and the accused persons has never visited his home. He further stated that the Investigating Officer had come to his village, he had taken away the informant and Vijay Kumar and the girl was recovered in the night itself. When he reached the village along with the police persons his daughter was sitting in the passage to the village along with some police persons.

7. The trial court referred to the defense statement that the respondent no.2 Diwakar Upadhyay himself had called the police by dialing 112. The defense also pleaded that the complainant knew the particulars of accused persons yet the F.I.R. has been lodged against another unknown persons.

8. The trial court has referred to the statement given by the victim during her cross-examination, wherein she stated that police had reached the village after about half an hour since since she had reached the village. She did not know as to how the police came there. She stated that on the date of the incident both the accused persons had come to attend a feast at the house of Vijay, who is related to the accused Diwakar. She had also gone to the house of Vijay to attend the feast. The victim stated that the accused persons had gone inside the house to meet her mother. She stated that when the accused persons were taking her away her uncle Hansraj Upadhyay had seen them.

9. The trial court has noted that the victim had stated during cross-examination that the police reached half an hour after the victim reached the village which shows that the complainant had complete information about the accused persons, but he deliberately did not name them in the F.I.R. The trial court further highlighted the fact that the victim stated in her cross- examination that before taking her away the accused persons had come to her village and talked to her mother, which fortifies the statement of the accused persons that they had taken away the victim along with them for ensuring her education at the request of the informant's mother.

10. The trial court further held that the allegation of sexual abuse is not made out from the statement of the victim and the prosecution has failed to established its case beyond reasonable doubt.

11. Having gone through the judgment of the trial court, it appears that the trial court has discussed the entire relevant material properly and has arrived at its findings after a thorough scrutiny of the entire relevant material. The findings of the trial court do not appear to be perverse.

12. Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the court below and thus it cannot be said that the view taken by trial court is a perverse view.

13. Thus in view of the fact that learned A.G.A. has failed to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings so recorded in the impugned order, no case for interference has been made out. No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted.

14. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Order on IA-01 of 2025:

15. As the court has not granted leave to the State to file appeal against the acquittal, there is no need to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay in filing appeal is accordingly disposed of. Order on memo of appeal:

16. Since this court has denied the State leave to file appeal, consequently the appeal is consigned to records. . Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Ram. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

arising out of Case Crime No.462 of 2019, under Sections 363, 354-Ka I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur, whereby the trial court has acquitted both the accused persons-respondents no.1 and 2.

3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 07.12.2019 stating that two unidentified persons riding a motorcycle had enticed away the informant's daughter aged about 14 years, who was studying in Class-9. On the basis of the aforesaid information an F.I.R. No.462 of 2019 was lodged against two unknown persons.

4. During trial the informant was examined as PW-1 who stated that two unknown persons had taken away his daughter on a motorcycle and it was seen by his younger brother Hansraj. Hansraj told about the incident to the informant and the informant gave a written complaint to the police. Thereafter, the police came to the informant's house and called Vijay Kumar Upadhyay, then it transpired that Anil Upadhyay had enticed away the informant's daughter daughter. Anil Upadhya is a relative of Vijay Kumar Upadhyay. The informant went with the police and recovered his daughter from the village of Anil Upadhyay. The victim told that both the accused persons had enticed her away. She did not know as to why had they had enticed her away.

5. The victim was examined as PW-2 and she stated that she and her sister had gone to attend a feast after Ramayan. While both of them were standing there, Anil Upadhyay came there and Diwakar followed him. They talked to the victim's mother and after the victim's father scolded them they went away. Thereafter the victim had gone to attend the call of nature along with another girl Rani, when both the accused persons tied her face with gamccha and they took her on a motorcycle. The respondent no.1-Anil Upadhyay gave his number to the other girl Rani and turned her away. The accused persons took her to a jungle and asked her to stay with them. They had caught her hold with evil intention. The victim ran away and reached her nearby village. Her father and police took her to the village.

6. During cross-examination the complainant stated that he had never met the accused persons and the accused persons has never visited his home. He further stated that the Investigating Officer had come to his village, he had taken away the informant and Vijay Kumar and the girl was recovered in the night itself. When he reached the village along with the police persons his daughter was sitting in the passage to the village along with some police persons.

7. The trial court referred to the defense statement that the respondent no.2 Diwakar Upadhyay himself had called the police by dialing 112. The defense also pleaded that the complainant knew the particulars of accused persons yet the F.I.R. has been lodged against another unknown persons.

8. The trial court has referred to the statement given by the victim during her cross-examination, wherein she stated that police had reached the village after about half an hour since since she had reached the village. She did not know as to how the police came there. She stated that on the date of the incident both the accused persons had come to attend a feast at the house of Vijay, who is related to the accused Diwakar. She had also gone to the house of Vijay to attend the feast. The victim stated that the accused persons had gone inside the house to meet her mother. She stated that when the accused persons were taking her away her uncle Hansraj Upadhyay had seen them.

9. The trial court has noted that the victim had stated during cross-examination that the police reached half an hour after the victim reached the village which shows that the complainant had complete information about the accused persons, but he deliberately did not name them in the F.I.R. The trial court further highlighted the fact that the victim stated in her cross- examination that before taking her away the accused persons had come to her village and talked to her mother, which fortifies the statement of the accused persons that they had taken away the victim along with them for ensuring her education at the request of the informant's mother.

10. The trial court further held that the allegation of sexual abuse is not made out from the statement of the victim and the prosecution has failed to established its case beyond reasonable doubt.

11. Having gone through the judgment of the trial court, it appears that the trial court has discussed the entire relevant material properly and has arrived at its findings after a thorough scrutiny of the entire relevant material. The findings of the trial court do not appear to be perverse.

12. Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the court below and thus it cannot be said that the view taken by trial court is a perverse view.

13. Thus in view of the fact that learned A.G.A. has failed to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings so recorded in the impugned order, no case for interference has been made out. No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted.

14. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Order on IA-01 of 2025:

15. As the court has not granted leave to the State to file appeal against the acquittal, there is no need to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay in filing appeal is accordingly disposed of. Order on memo of appeal:

16. Since this court has denied the State leave to file appeal, consequently the appeal is consigned to records. . Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Ram. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]