State of U.P v. Bheem and Another, arising out of Case Crime No

We asked the learned counsel for the complainant to indicate the reasons for filing the appeal with delay, learned counsel for the complainant has referred to paragraph no. 3 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, which says that due to financial crisis as well as due to lack of legal knowledge regarding limitation, he could not file the criminal appeal in time. We have gone through the afÏdavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay and we find that the afÏdavit is filed by the deponent, Suresh Kumar, aged about 56 years and he says that he is appellant/complainant himself and he is fully conversant with the facts of the case. He again says that due to financial crisis and due lack of legal knowledge about the limitation, he could not file the criminal appeal in time. Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the memo of appeal as well as the memo of the application for condonation of delay indicate that the complainant is a minor girl, who has come through her natural guardian, however, the deponent of the afÏdavit is 56 years of age and he appears to be the father of the minor girl. It has also been pointed out that the trial court has considered the initial F.I.R. lodged by the father of the alleged victim in Case Crime No. 335 of 2017, under sections 363,366,376-D of the I.P.C. and section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, where the Investigating OfÏcer has filed the chargesheet and the charges were framed under sections 363,366,376-D of the I.P.C. and section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, in Sessions Trial No. 173 of 2018. It was the prosecution story that the complainant's daughter, who allegedly was 16 years of age, had gone to the bank to take out some money, but, she was abducted by the accused-respondents and that the complainant was looking here and there for his daughter, but, he could not find her and when he returned to his village on 22-08- 2017, he asked the family members of the accused, Bheem, who threatened him with dire consequences and the accused, Bheem also indicated to the complainant that he had taken his daughter to Panipat and left her with his brother, Arjun. After considering the evidences including the statement of prosecution witness no. 2, the alleged victim to the crime, trial court has come to a conclusion that the victim was living out of her own sweet will with accused, Bheem, with whom she had married out of her love and affection and she had two children out of the wedlock with Bheem and she did not support the prosecution story. Sri Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the complainant in this case, who is the father of the alleged victim, does not fall within the definition of victim as given under section 2(w)(a) of the Cr.P.C.(new section 2(x) of the B.N.S.S.). Learned trial court has also considered the evidence of the mother of the victim and then has come to the entirely reasonable conclusion that the alleged victim was major and a consenting party and during the medical examination of the alleged victim conducted, she was found to be 19 years of age and there was no injury found on her body and that she was living as wife of the main accused, Bheem and there was no ingredient of section 29 of the POCSO Act made out from the evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant, the father of the alleged victim, has stated that the age of the alleged victim shall be determined only on the basis of educational certificate and since in the educational certificate, her date of birth indicated to be only 16 years of age at the time of her abduction by the main accused, Bheem, trial court has committed an illegality relying upon the medical evidence regarding the age of the alleged victim. Having gone through the Judgment of the trial court, we find that the medical evidence has only been stated by the trial court, but, emphasis has not been placed thereon, instead the trial court has taken into account the fact that both the alleged victim and her mother, have not supported the prosecution story and they had stated that the victim had gone out of her own sweet will with the main accused, Bheem and then had got married to him and was living with him and had two children out of the wedlock with Bheem. We do not find any perversity or grave illegality, which would impel us to issue a notice/bailable warrant to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 in this appeal. We also find that the entire premise, on which the Judgment of the trail court, is based, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Any reasonably prudent man, who is well versed with the law, would come to the same conclusion. We do not find any illegality in the Judgment of the trial court. The instant appeal stands dismissed. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 AKS ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

We asked the learned counsel for the complainant to indicate the reasons for filing the appeal with delay, learned counsel for the complainant has referred to paragraph no. 3 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, which says that due to financial crisis as well as due to lack of legal knowledge regarding limitation, he could not file the criminal appeal in time. We have gone through the afÏdavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay and we find that the afÏdavit is filed by the deponent, Suresh Kumar, aged about 56 years and he says that he is appellant/complainant himself and he is fully conversant with the facts of the case. He again says that due to financial crisis and due lack of legal knowledge about the limitation, he could not file the criminal appeal in time. Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the memo of appeal as well as the memo of the application for condonation of delay indicate that the complainant is a minor girl, who has come through her natural guardian, however, the deponent of the afÏdavit is 56 years of age and he appears to be the father of the minor girl. It has also been pointed out that the trial court has considered the initial F.I.R. lodged by the father of the alleged victim in Case Crime No. 335 of 2017, under sections 363,366,376-D of the I.P.C. and section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, where the Investigating OfÏcer has filed the chargesheet and the charges were framed under sections 363,366,376-D of the I.P.C. and section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, in Sessions Trial No. 173 of 2018. It was the prosecution story that the complainant's daughter, who allegedly was 16 years of age, had gone to the bank to take out some money, but, she was abducted by the accused-respondents and that the complainant was looking here and there for his daughter, but, he could not find her and when he returned to his village on 22-08- 2017, he asked the family members of the accused, Bheem, who threatened him with dire consequences and the accused, Bheem also indicated to the complainant that he had taken his daughter to Panipat and left her with his brother, Arjun. After considering the evidences including the statement of prosecution witness no. 2, the alleged victim to the crime, trial court has come to a conclusion that the victim was living out of her own sweet will with accused, Bheem, with whom she had married out of her love and affection and she had two children out of the wedlock with Bheem and she did not support the prosecution story. Sri Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the complainant in this case, who is the father of the alleged victim, does not fall within the definition of victim as given under section 2(w)(a) of the Cr.P.C.(new section 2(x) of the B.N.S.S.). Learned trial court has also considered the evidence of the mother of the victim and then has come to the entirely reasonable conclusion that the alleged victim was major and a consenting party and during the medical examination of the alleged victim conducted, she was found to be 19 years of age and there was no injury found on her body and that she was living as wife of the main accused, Bheem and there was no ingredient of section 29 of the POCSO Act made out from the evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant, the father of the alleged victim, has stated that the age of the alleged victim shall be determined only on the basis of educational certificate and since in the educational certificate, her date of birth indicated to be only 16 years of age at the time of her abduction by the main accused, Bheem, trial court has committed an illegality relying upon the medical evidence regarding the age of the alleged victim. Having gone through the Judgment of the trial court, we find that the medical evidence has only been stated by the trial court, but, emphasis has not been placed thereon, instead the trial court has taken into account the fact that both the alleged victim and her mother, have not supported the prosecution story and they had stated that the victim had gone out of her own sweet will with the main accused, Bheem and then had got married to him and was living with him and had two children out of the wedlock with Bheem. We do not find any perversity or grave illegality, which would impel us to issue a notice/bailable warrant to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 in this appeal. We also find that the entire premise, on which the Judgment of the trail court, is based, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Any reasonably prudent man, who is well versed with the law, would come to the same conclusion. We do not find any illegality in the Judgment of the trial court. The instant appeal stands dismissed. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 AKS ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench