High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant- appellant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondent.

2. Stamp Reporter has reported delay of 318 days in filing the present appeal.

3. Present appeal has been filed under Section 413 of B.N.S.S. by the victim herself, who is also the informant challenging the judgment dated 27.5.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in Session Trial No. 1107 of 2022 (State vs. Babar) arising out of Case Crime No. 197 of 2022, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffarnagar, whereby the accused has been acquitted.

4. An affidavit of the victim herself aged about 24 years has been filed in support of present delay condonation application.

5. Only paragraph 4 of the delay condonation application is relevant wherein sole ground taken for condoning the delay is that there is no deliberate or intentional delay in filing the appeal and the same is due to lack of knowledge regarding limitation, therefore, the appeal may be condoned. Paragraph 4 of the delay condonation application is quoted as under:- "4. That there is no deliberate or intentional delay in filing of appeal, the same is due to lack of knowledge regarding limitation, hence the delay may be condoned and appeal may be heard on merit."

6. We find that ignorance of law is no excuse for condoning the delay of more than 300 days.

7. In any case, to do complete justice, we have gone through the judgment of trial court so as to assess if there is any slightest possibility of reversing the judgment of trial court.

8. The prosecution case in the first information was to the effect that the accused-Babar was exploiting her on false promise of marriage for last about 3 years and when she asked him to marry her, he said that he will not marry and that she cannot do anything against him and the family members of the accused made dirty allegations against her.

9. The informant-victim appeared as PW-1 and her medical report is also on record as Ext. Ka-3. Zubaida, mother of the victim appeared as PW-2 and has supported the prosecution version and stated that the accused was continuously exploiting the victim sexually and when they had approached the parents and family members of the accused-Babar, they refused to marry her with their son and stated that the marriage will take place only if four wheeler vehicle is given, otherwise, the victim would be defamed. Vakeela, maternal aunty (mausi) of the victim has also supported the prosecution version in same terms as narrated by PW-2. Dr. Anupama Singh has appeared as PW-4 and stated that the condition of the victim was normal and there was no external injury and the hymen was old torn and that no definite opinion of rape is given. Other witnesses no. 5, 6 and 7 are formal witnesses. Mohd. Harun has appeared as DW-1 and Sajrin has appeared as DW-2 and stated that the victim was already married and no divorce had taken place and the accused has been falsely implicated. PW-1 herself had admitted this fact that she was previously married and that she was having physical relationship with the accused-Babar for last about 3 years, however, this was being done on false promise of marriage. She further admitted that earlier she filed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was rejected and that earlier she was married with one Mustqeem one year back, however, divorce had taken place after 5-6 months. Zubaida, mother of the victim as PW-2 in her cross-examination had also admitted that her daughter used to go out about 07:00 P.M. on the pretext to meet her female friend but she is not aware about her name and she used to come home about 08:30-09:00 P.M. Vakeela, maternal aunty (mausi) as PW-3 in her cross examination admitted that she had never seen sexual exploitation of the victim by the accused-Babar. Medical report made by Dr. Anupama Singh also reflects that there was no external or internal injury and the hymen was old torn. The other witnesses are formal.

10. We find that DW-1 Mohd. Harun had stated that the victim got married on 18.10.2014 with Mustqeem. DW-2 Sajrin also stated this fact that the victim was a married lady and no divorce had taken place. This fact was stated by DW-2 in her cross- examination as well. In such view of the matter, the judgment of acquittal was passed.

11. Admittedly, the appellant was having consented physical relationship with the accused for the last three years and during this period she had married with Mustqeem and there is no evidence that divorce had taken place between them, therefore, in such view of the matter, there can be no false promise of marriage in respect of married lady.

12. In this background, there appears to be absolutely not even remote chance of reversing the judgment of trial court.

13. We further find that the explanation so offered by the victim- appellant in paragraph 4 as quoted above that she does not have knowledge regarding limitation and there was no deliberate or intentional delay in filing the appeal is absolutely baseless and is not worth believing inasmuch as it is apparent that the application filed by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the same accused was rejected.

14. Accordingly, the delay condonation application stands rejected. Re: Appeal

1. Since the delay condonation application is rejected by order of date, the appeal is also dismissed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Lalit Shukla LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant- appellant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondent.

2. Stamp Reporter has reported delay of 318 days in filing the present appeal.

3. Present appeal has been filed under Section 413 of B.N.S.S. by the victim herself, who is also the informant challenging the judgment dated 27.5.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in Session Trial No. 1107 of 2022 (State vs. Babar) arising out of Case Crime No. 197 of 2022, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffarnagar, whereby the accused has been acquitted.

4. An affidavit of the victim herself aged about 24 years has been filed in support of present delay condonation application.

5. Only paragraph 4 of the delay condonation application is relevant wherein sole ground taken for condoning the delay is that there is no deliberate or intentional delay in filing the appeal and the same is due to lack of knowledge regarding limitation, therefore, the appeal may be condoned. Paragraph 4 of the delay condonation application is quoted as under:- "4. That there is no deliberate or intentional delay in filing of appeal, the same is due to lack of knowledge regarding limitation, hence the delay may be condoned and appeal may be heard on merit."

6. We find that ignorance of law is no excuse for condoning the delay of more than 300 days.

7. In any case, to do complete justice, we have gone through the judgment of trial court so as to assess if there is any slightest possibility of reversing the judgment of trial court.

8. The prosecution case in the first information was to the effect that the accused-Babar was exploiting her on false promise of marriage for last about 3 years and when she asked him to marry her, he said that he will not marry and that she cannot do anything against him and the family members of the accused made dirty allegations against her.

9. The informant-victim appeared as PW-1 and her medical report is also on record as Ext. Ka-3. Zubaida, mother of the victim appeared as PW-2 and has supported the prosecution version and stated that the accused was continuously exploiting the victim sexually and when they had approached the parents and family members of the accused-Babar, they refused to marry her with their son and stated that the marriage will take place only if four wheeler vehicle is given, otherwise, the victim would be defamed. Vakeela, maternal aunty (mausi) of the victim has also supported the prosecution version in same terms as narrated by PW-2. Dr. Anupama Singh has appeared as PW-4 and stated that the condition of the victim was normal and there was no external injury and the hymen was old torn and that no definite opinion of rape is given. Other witnesses no. 5, 6 and 7 are formal witnesses. Mohd. Harun has appeared as DW-1 and Sajrin has appeared as DW-2 and stated that the victim was already married and no divorce had taken place and the accused has been falsely implicated. PW-1 herself had admitted this fact that she was previously married and that she was having physical relationship with the accused-Babar for last about 3 years, however, this was being done on false promise of marriage. She further admitted that earlier she filed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was rejected and that earlier she was married with one Mustqeem one year back, however, divorce had taken place after 5-6 months. Zubaida, mother of the victim as PW-2 in her cross-examination had also admitted that her daughter used to go out about 07:00 P.M. on the pretext to meet her female friend but she is not aware about her name and she used to come home about 08:30-09:00 P.M. Vakeela, maternal aunty (mausi) as PW-3 in her cross examination admitted that she had never seen sexual exploitation of the victim by the accused-Babar. Medical report made by Dr. Anupama Singh also reflects that there was no external or internal injury and the hymen was old torn. The other witnesses are formal.

10. We find that DW-1 Mohd. Harun had stated that the victim got married on 18.10.2014 with Mustqeem. DW-2 Sajrin also stated this fact that the victim was a married lady and no divorce had taken place. This fact was stated by DW-2 in her cross- examination as well. In such view of the matter, the judgment of acquittal was passed.

11. Admittedly, the appellant was having consented physical relationship with the accused for the last three years and during this period she had married with Mustqeem and there is no evidence that divorce had taken place between them, therefore, in such view of the matter, there can be no false promise of marriage in respect of married lady.

12. In this background, there appears to be absolutely not even remote chance of reversing the judgment of trial court.

13. We further find that the explanation so offered by the victim- appellant in paragraph 4 as quoted above that she does not have knowledge regarding limitation and there was no deliberate or intentional delay in filing the appeal is absolutely baseless and is not worth believing inasmuch as it is apparent that the application filed by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the same accused was rejected.

14. Accordingly, the delay condonation application stands rejected. Re: Appeal

1. Since the delay condonation application is rejected by order of date, the appeal is also dismissed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Lalit Shukla LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad