State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Bailistar Alias Rizwan Ahmad And Another v. Counsel for

7. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is apparent that the P.W.-3 - retired Head Constable- Salik Ram proved the chik F.I.R.. The P.W.-1 - informant also proved the complaint and developed a case of rape, which was not stated in the F.I.R.. It is admitted by the P.W.-2 - victim that that she narrated the incident to her husband- P.W.-1, mother- in-law and others. The P.W.-2 made allegations of rape in her deposition before the Court concerned stating therein that the respondent no.1 came to her house, gave her a lot of beatings, forcibly inserted his genital part into her vagina and kept it there for about half an hour. On the other hand, the victim also admitted that she had not taken any medical aid after the incident of rape. In the victim's cross-examination, she stated that on the next day of the incident, she went to police station, where her report was lodged and Circle Officer interrogated her and on that day, a Sub Inspector visited the place of incident. In her examination, she also stated that the respondent no.1 earlier also visited her house and commit wrong with her, but she never made any compliant to her family members. In the respondent no.1's statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that there was a money dispute between the parties and as the informant was not returning the money, some quarrel was taken place between them, due to which, false prosecution was initiated. The defense witnesses, i.e., D.W.-1 - Akeel and D.W.-2 - Nisar Ahmad were also examined before the trial Court and Akeel stated that on 30.12.2011, a quarrel was taken place between the informant and the respondent no.1.

8. Evidently, the entire prosecution story reveals that the F.I.R. was lodged on the version narrated by the victim to her husband and there is no allegation of rape in the said F.I.R.. However, a case was developed by the victim who admitted that prior to the incident, the applicant was frequently visiting her house and doing wrong with her, but she never informed about the same to her family members. It is also evident that prior to lodging of the F.I.R., a complaint was made to the police and 4 GOVA No. 21 of 2025 inquiry was conducted, in which, it was found that there was a money dispute between the parties, and no medical aid was taken by the victim after the incident of rape as well as beatings.

9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the respondent no.1.

10. As it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to re- appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence and this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh And Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 as well as Anwar Ali and Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 10 SCC 166.

11. Thus, having considered the matter in its totality and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's case (supra) and Anwar Ali's case (supra), we find that the trial court's findings regarding acquittal of accused/respondent herein are based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record which do not in any manner appear to be improbable or perverse.

12. On the basis of forgoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.

13. Since the application for leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive and the same stands dismissed. September 11, 2025 Arpan (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

7. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is apparent that the P.W.-3 - retired Head Constable- Salik Ram proved the chik F.I.R.. The P.W.-1 - informant also proved the complaint and developed a case of rape, which was not stated in the F.I.R.. It is admitted by the P.W.-2 - victim that that she narrated the incident to her husband- P.W.-1, mother- in-law and others. The P.W.-2 made allegations of rape in her deposition before the Court concerned stating therein that the respondent no.1 came to her house, gave her a lot of beatings, forcibly inserted his genital part into her vagina and kept it there for about half an hour. On the other hand, the victim also admitted that she had not taken any medical aid after the incident of rape. In the victim's cross-examination, she stated that on the next day of the incident, she went to police station, where her report was lodged and Circle Officer interrogated her and on that day, a Sub Inspector visited the place of incident. In her examination, she also stated that the respondent no.1 earlier also visited her house and commit wrong with her, but she never made any compliant to her family members. In the respondent no.1's statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that there was a money dispute between the parties and as the informant was not returning the money, some quarrel was taken place between them, due to which, false prosecution was initiated. The defense witnesses, i.e., D.W.-1 - Akeel and D.W.-2 - Nisar Ahmad were also examined before the trial Court and Akeel stated that on 30.12.2011, a quarrel was taken place between the informant and the respondent no.1.

8. Evidently, the entire prosecution story reveals that the F.I.R. was lodged on the version narrated by the victim to her husband and there is no allegation of rape in the said F.I.R.. However, a case was developed by the victim who admitted that prior to the incident, the applicant was frequently visiting her house and doing wrong with her, but she never informed about the same to her family members. It is also evident that prior to lodging of the F.I.R., a complaint was made to the police and 4 GOVA No. 21 of 2025 inquiry was conducted, in which, it was found that there was a money dispute between the parties, and no medical aid was taken by the victim after the incident of rape as well as beatings.

9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the respondent no.1.

10. As it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to re- appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence and this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh And Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 as well as Anwar Ali and Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 10 SCC 166.

11. Thus, having considered the matter in its totality and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's case (supra) and Anwar Ali's case (supra), we find that the trial court's findings regarding acquittal of accused/respondent herein are based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record which do not in any manner appear to be improbable or perverse.

12. On the basis of forgoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.

13. Since the application for leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive and the same stands dismissed. September 11, 2025 Arpan (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench