State of U.P v. Juvenile 'P'

Juvenile 'P' & 2 Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 725 of 2023, under Sections -376, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of POCSO Act read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, Police Station - Gajraula, District - Amroha. By the impugned order the learned court below has acquitted all the accused persons of the offences alleged.

4. Briefly, it may be noted, the prosecution story emerged on the strength of FIR lodged by the father of the victim girl, alleging that the victim who was a minor had been enticed in a love relationship by the main accused 'P' who himself was a juvenile and that on such enticement he had committed repeated rape on the victim for over one year as also he blackmailed her on the strength of certain obscene photographs obtained by him - of the victim girl. The other accused tried to commit rape on the victim girl. That was resisted by the victim. Upon such occurrence, the matter came to light and knowledge of the first informant who is the father of the victim girl.

5. Upon such FIR lodged, the matter was investigated. During investigation, the victim girl supported the allegation of rape made against 'P' both in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. However, no medical evidence arose to corroborate the occurrence. Thereupon charge sheet was submitted.

6. At the trial, the first informant who is the father of the victim (P.W.-1 at the trial) proved the fact that he had submitted the Written Report leading to the FIR being lodged. However, he denied having been told by the victim that 'P' had committed rape on her. In fact, he described that he gained knowledge of that fact from other persons of his locality. However, he is not an eye- witness of the occurrence.

7. The crucial witness i.e. the victim (P.W.-2) did not support the prosecution story at the trial. Though she did not deny having made earlier statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., during investigation, at the trial, she did a volte-face. Neither she supported the prosecution allegation of repeated rape committed on her on false promise of marriage nor she supported the blackmail held out on the strength of any obscene photographs obtained by 'P'. In short, she completely denied the very basis/the foundation of the prosecution story as may have been examined to test the fulfilment of ingredients of offence alleged. She was declared hostile. However, upon cross-examination, she maintained her altered stand taken before the learned court below. She continued to deny the occurrence of rape and blackmail. Here, it may also be noted that though allegation was made of obscene photographs obtained by 'P' and of blackmail held out on that strength, such material was not recovered during investigation.

8. Next, Dr. Pallavi Gangvar was examined as P.W.-3. She had conducted the medical examination of the victim girl. She proved the medical examination offered by her on 18.11.2023. With respect to occurrence dated 28.10.2023, she had not noted any either external or internal injury on the victim. As to commission of rape, she expressed that no opinion could be formed as to such occurrence.

9. Thereafter, the other formal witnesses were examined to establish the age of the victim (which clearly was below 18 years), as also registration of the FIR and investigation. With that there is no dispute.

10. It is in such circumstances, the learned court below has made holistic appraisal of the critical evidence led by the first informant (P.W.-1) and the rape survivor (P.W.-2). It has been noted, neither supported the allegations made against 'P'. Thus, on a substantive basis, no evidence emerged before the learned court below on which it may have offered conviction. Once the basic ingredient of the offence alleged was not established before the learned court below on the strength of ocular evidence and since the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were wholly contradicted by the victim at the trial, it did not inspire confidence with the learned court below to rely on such statements.

11. At the substantive level, no evidence existed to establish the occurrence of rape. No corroborative material was brought by the prosecution in support of allegation of rape.

12. Having heard learned AGA and having perused the order of the learned court below, we find, no manifest error in the approach adopted by the learned court below. Primarily, in the context of criminal trial, the learned trial court may proceed on substantive evidence alone. Here, there is none.

13. Whatever worth those may be, the statements recorded during investigation may not have led to any different conclusion, especially since those were denied by the victim and there was no other evidence to establish that the occurrence of rape caused.

14. On the contrary, it has been submitted by the victim herself that her marriage has been fixed with 'P'. It indicates to the Court that there may have existed some other dispute which now stands resolved, in view of the statements made by the victim.

15. In view of the above, we find no good ground exists with the prosecution to seek leave to appeal. That application is accordingly rejected.

16. Consequently, the present leave to appeal proceedings are dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Abhilash . (Sandeep Jain, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.) ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Juvenile 'P' & 2 Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 725 of 2023, under Sections -376, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of POCSO Act read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, Police Station - Gajraula, District - Amroha. By the impugned order the learned court below has acquitted all the accused persons of the offences alleged.

4. Briefly, it may be noted, the prosecution story emerged on the strength of FIR lodged by the father of the victim girl, alleging that the victim who was a minor had been enticed in a love relationship by the main accused 'P' who himself was a juvenile and that on such enticement he had committed repeated rape on the victim for over one year as also he blackmailed her on the strength of certain obscene photographs obtained by him - of the victim girl. The other accused tried to commit rape on the victim girl. That was resisted by the victim. Upon such occurrence, the matter came to light and knowledge of the first informant who is the father of the victim girl.

5. Upon such FIR lodged, the matter was investigated. During investigation, the victim girl supported the allegation of rape made against 'P' both in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. However, no medical evidence arose to corroborate the occurrence. Thereupon charge sheet was submitted.

6. At the trial, the first informant who is the father of the victim (P.W.-1 at the trial) proved the fact that he had submitted the Written Report leading to the FIR being lodged. However, he denied having been told by the victim that 'P' had committed rape on her. In fact, he described that he gained knowledge of that fact from other persons of his locality. However, he is not an eye- witness of the occurrence.

7. The crucial witness i.e. the victim (P.W.-2) did not support the prosecution story at the trial. Though she did not deny having made earlier statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., during investigation, at the trial, she did a volte-face. Neither she supported the prosecution allegation of repeated rape committed on her on false promise of marriage nor she supported the blackmail held out on the strength of any obscene photographs obtained by 'P'. In short, she completely denied the very basis/the foundation of the prosecution story as may have been examined to test the fulfilment of ingredients of offence alleged. She was declared hostile. However, upon cross-examination, she maintained her altered stand taken before the learned court below. She continued to deny the occurrence of rape and blackmail. Here, it may also be noted that though allegation was made of obscene photographs obtained by 'P' and of blackmail held out on that strength, such material was not recovered during investigation.

8. Next, Dr. Pallavi Gangvar was examined as P.W.-3. She had conducted the medical examination of the victim girl. She proved the medical examination offered by her on 18.11.2023. With respect to occurrence dated 28.10.2023, she had not noted any either external or internal injury on the victim. As to commission of rape, she expressed that no opinion could be formed as to such occurrence.

9. Thereafter, the other formal witnesses were examined to establish the age of the victim (which clearly was below 18 years), as also registration of the FIR and investigation. With that there is no dispute.

10. It is in such circumstances, the learned court below has made holistic appraisal of the critical evidence led by the first informant (P.W.-1) and the rape survivor (P.W.-2). It has been noted, neither supported the allegations made against 'P'. Thus, on a substantive basis, no evidence emerged before the learned court below on which it may have offered conviction. Once the basic ingredient of the offence alleged was not established before the learned court below on the strength of ocular evidence and since the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were wholly contradicted by the victim at the trial, it did not inspire confidence with the learned court below to rely on such statements.

11. At the substantive level, no evidence existed to establish the occurrence of rape. No corroborative material was brought by the prosecution in support of allegation of rape.

12. Having heard learned AGA and having perused the order of the learned court below, we find, no manifest error in the approach adopted by the learned court below. Primarily, in the context of criminal trial, the learned trial court may proceed on substantive evidence alone. Here, there is none.

13. Whatever worth those may be, the statements recorded during investigation may not have led to any different conclusion, especially since those were denied by the victim and there was no other evidence to establish that the occurrence of rape caused.

14. On the contrary, it has been submitted by the victim herself that her marriage has been fixed with 'P'. It indicates to the Court that there may have existed some other dispute which now stands resolved, in view of the statements made by the victim.

15. In view of the above, we find no good ground exists with the prosecution to seek leave to appeal. That application is accordingly rejected.

16. Consequently, the present leave to appeal proceedings are dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Abhilash . (Sandeep Jain, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.) ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad