Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko v. Counsel for

1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned AGA-I on application seeking leave to file Appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012, Balrampur in Special Session Trial No.287 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.154 of 2022 under Section 354-A, 506 IPC and Section 8 read with Section 7 of P.O.C.S.O. Act and Section 3/5(1) of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

2. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR alleging that the informant's daughter aged 18 years, who has passed Class XII, used to take tutions from the accused respondent since

01.10.2021. The respondent entangled her in his love affair, took her mobile number, started indulging in obscene talks with her and asked to make physical relations with her. The respondent started brain washing the informant's daughter stating that he would marry her and convert her religion to Islam. The respondent used to state that conversion to Islam have several benefits. The respondent used to harass the informant's daughter mentally due to which she 2 A378D No. 125 of 2025 fell ill and went into depression and she is undergoing treatment in a private hospital at Lucknow since 13.07.2022.

3. In the statement of the victim recorded by the trial court, she supported the FIR version. During her cross-examination, the victim stated that her younger brother has also studied in the same school and same class since their childhood. She stated that she and her brother both were excellent in studies and they got good ranks in examinations. The victim further stated that she did not meet the respondent on any occasion after the coaching. She did not have any contact with the respondent since January, 2022. She did not have a mobile phone of her own. Her mother had a mobile phone but she did not remember its number. The respondent used to send messages on the number of her mother but she used to delete the messages. The victim further stated that she used to go to attend coaching along with her brother and she used to come back with him. She did not stay at the coaching even for a minute after completion of the classes and she used to return home with her brother. She did not see the respondent at any place other than the coaching centre. She did not ever talk to the respondent any coaching classes. She did not show any WhatsApp message to the Investigating Officer and she did not remember as to whether she had given the mobile number of the informant to the Investigating Officer.

4. The victim's brother was examined as PW-3 and he stated that the victim had told her that the tution teacher was keeping an evil eye upon her, he repetitively tried to touch her and he stated that he would marry her and convert her religion to Islam.

5. The trial court dealt with the entire material on record including all the statements and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt and it acquitted the respondent giving him benefit of doubt.

6. While pressing the application seeking leave to file Appeal against the aforesaid order of acquittal, the learned AGA-I has 3 A378D No. 125 of 2025 submitted that the victim has stated that the respondent used to touch her back during the class. She has further stated that the respondent used to scold other children but he never scolded the victim. The victim further stated that the respondent used to ask her to marry him and to convert her religion. The aforesaid statement made out a case for conviction of the respondent.

7. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that the trial Court has dealt with the entire evidence which shows that the victim has categorically stated that she has studied with her brother since childhood, she used to go to coaching classes along with her brother to come back with him; she did not stay after coaching class even for a minute, she did not see the respondent on any occasion outside the coaching classes.

8. In these circumstances, when the victim's brother always used to accompany her and he did not raise any objection against any conduct of the respondent in the coaching class, by the mere fact that the victim has stated that the respondent used to scold other children whereas he did not scold the victim, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed any offence, more particularly, when the victim has categorically stated that she and her brother were very good in studies and they always used to secure good ranks. The victim had secured second rank and her brother had secured third rank in Intermediate. In these circumstances, if the respondent did not find any reason to scold the victim as she was an excellent in her studies, the mere fact that he scolded other students and he did not scold the victim, would not make a case for conviction of the respondent.

9. I find that the judgment of the trial Court is well reasoned order, the findings have been arrived at after proper scrutiny of the ebidence and the findings are not perverse.

10. In these circumstances, there is no good ground to leave to the State to file an Appeal against the judgment and order dated

25.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012, 4 A378D No. 125 of 2025 Balrampur.

11. The leave application is hereby rejected. (Order on delay condonation application)

1. As this Court has rejected the application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012, Balrampur, there is no occasion for issuing notice on the application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

2. Let the application be consigned to records. (Order on Appeal)

1. As this Court has rejected the application seeking leave to file Appeal, let the appeal be consigned to records. September 2, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned AGA-I on application seeking leave to file Appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012, Balrampur in Special Session Trial No.287 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.154 of 2022 under Section 354-A, 506 IPC and Section 8 read with Section 7 of P.O.C.S.O. Act and Section 3/5(1) of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

2. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR alleging that the informant's daughter aged 18 years, who has passed Class XII, used to take tutions from the accused respondent since

01.10.2021. The respondent entangled her in his love affair, took her mobile number, started indulging in obscene talks with her and asked to make physical relations with her. The respondent started brain washing the informant's daughter stating that he would marry her and convert her religion to Islam. The respondent used to state that conversion to Islam have several benefits. The respondent used to harass the informant's daughter mentally due to which she 2 A378D No. 125 of 2025 fell ill and went into depression and she is undergoing treatment in a private hospital at Lucknow since 13.07.2022.

3. In the statement of the victim recorded by the trial court, she supported the FIR version. During her cross-examination, the victim stated that her younger brother has also studied in the same school and same class since their childhood. She stated that she and her brother both were excellent in studies and they got good ranks in examinations. The victim further stated that she did not meet the respondent on any occasion after the coaching. She did not have any contact with the respondent since January, 2022. She did not have a mobile phone of her own. Her mother had a mobile phone but she did not remember its number. The respondent used to send messages on the number of her mother but she used to delete the messages. The victim further stated that she used to go to attend coaching along with her brother and she used to come back with him. She did not stay at the coaching even for a minute after completion of the classes and she used to return home with her brother. She did not see the respondent at any place other than the coaching centre. She did not ever talk to the respondent any coaching classes. She did not show any WhatsApp message to the Investigating Officer and she did not remember as to whether she had given the mobile number of the informant to the Investigating Officer.

4. The victim's brother was examined as PW-3 and he stated that the victim had told her that the tution teacher was keeping an evil eye upon her, he repetitively tried to touch her and he stated that he would marry her and convert her religion to Islam.

5. The trial court dealt with the entire material on record including all the statements and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt and it acquitted the respondent giving him benefit of doubt.

6. While pressing the application seeking leave to file Appeal against the aforesaid order of acquittal, the learned AGA-I has 3 A378D No. 125 of 2025 submitted that the victim has stated that the respondent used to touch her back during the class. She has further stated that the respondent used to scold other children but he never scolded the victim. The victim further stated that the respondent used to ask her to marry him and to convert her religion. The aforesaid statement made out a case for conviction of the respondent.

7. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that the trial Court has dealt with the entire evidence which shows that the victim has categorically stated that she has studied with her brother since childhood, she used to go to coaching classes along with her brother to come back with him; she did not stay after coaching class even for a minute, she did not see the respondent on any occasion outside the coaching classes.

8. In these circumstances, when the victim's brother always used to accompany her and he did not raise any objection against any conduct of the respondent in the coaching class, by the mere fact that the victim has stated that the respondent used to scold other children whereas he did not scold the victim, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed any offence, more particularly, when the victim has categorically stated that she and her brother were very good in studies and they always used to secure good ranks. The victim had secured second rank and her brother had secured third rank in Intermediate. In these circumstances, if the respondent did not find any reason to scold the victim as she was an excellent in her studies, the mere fact that he scolded other students and he did not scold the victim, would not make a case for conviction of the respondent.

9. I find that the judgment of the trial Court is well reasoned order, the findings have been arrived at after proper scrutiny of the ebidence and the findings are not perverse.

10. In these circumstances, there is no good ground to leave to the State to file an Appeal against the judgment and order dated

25.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012, 4 A378D No. 125 of 2025 Balrampur.

11. The leave application is hereby rejected. (Order on delay condonation application)

1. As this Court has rejected the application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012, Balrampur, there is no occasion for issuing notice on the application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

2. Let the application be consigned to records. (Order on Appeal)

1. As this Court has rejected the application seeking leave to file Appeal, let the appeal be consigned to records. September 2, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench