Allowed

Ajeet Alias Kharku Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 May 2019CRLA/2690/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed this appeal against rape conviction, setting aside the trial court's judgment and acquitting the appellant. The court found no evidence on record due to the victim and witnesses turning hostile, lack of medical support, and the prosecution relying solely on uncorroborated previous statements to convict.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the learned trial court was set aside and the accused-appellant was acquitted of charges under sections 376 and 506 IPC.

Ajeet Alias Kharku Chauhan Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2690 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Ajeet Alias Kharku Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Bipin Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ram Aadhar Ram, learned A.G.A.

¶6

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgement of the District and Sessions Judge, Chandauli, in S.T. No.25 of 2018, arising out of case crime no.266 of 2017, under sections 376 and 506 IPC, P.S.Chakiya, District Chandauli by which accused-appellant Ajeet Alias Kharku Chauhan, has been sentenced for the offence under section 376 IPC for 12 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.50,000/- fine and under section 506 IPC for 1 year rigorous imprisonment and Rs.2,000/- fine.

¶7

Aggrieved by this judgement, accused-appellant has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment on the basis that there was a delay of more than 6 days in lodging the FIR. The medical examination report did not support the prosecution version and no internal and external injury was found on the body of the victim. The victim was declared hostile. The accused-appellant is relative of the victim. He has falsely implicated and there was no evidence on record to hold him guilty for the offence, therefore, the impugned judgement is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside and accusedappellant may be acquitted.

¶8

The prosecution story is that an FIR was lodged in support of the incident dated 14.11.2017, stating that at about 12.30 P.M. in the night when the victim was sleeping in her house, accused-appellant came into the house and committed rape with her and threatened that if she will tell to any one, he will kill her husband. She informed about the incident to her husband on 15.11.2017, and her husband came on 19.11.2017. The FIR was lodged and after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted for the offence under section 376 and 506 IPC.

¶9

The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to support the

¶10

prosecution case, P.W.1 is victim, P.W.2 is witness of fact, P.W.3, Pradeep Chauhan, husband of the informant, P.W.4 lady constable Auradha Gupta, P.W.5 H.C.P. Rajendra Yadav, P.W.6 I.O.Arvind Singh, P.W.7 Dr. Chanda Patel and P.W.8 Ahok Kumar, these witnesses have proved the police papers, Exbit. A-1 to Exbit A-9. In addition to it the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. which was also got proved. In the statement of the accused-appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., he has stated that the witnesses have given false evidence and he further stated that he has no knowledge about the statement given under section 164 Cr.P.C.. He has also stated that, because of family dispute of property, he was falsely implicated in the case.

¶11

After hearing the prosecution and defence, the impugned judgement was passed by the trial court convicting the accused for the offence under section 376 and 506 IPC.

¶12

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that in her statement, P.W.1 victim has not supported the prosecution version. She has stated in her statement that she knows the accused-appellant, who is cousin brother of her husband. On the date of the incident at about 12.00 P.M. to 12.30 P.M. in the night, the accused-appellant did not come to her house, he did not commit rape with her and has stated that her husband told her that to cope up with the problem of land dispute, lodge a report so that the land dispute may come to an end for ever. She has stated that she did not see the accused-appellant. The same thing she has repeated in her cross-examination and whatever she had stated before the magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. She has stated that on the direction of her husband she lodged the FIR, meaning thereby the victim turned hostile. She did not support the prosecution version. P.W.2 Saroj Devi is her sister-in-law, who was residing in the same house with the victim, she has also stated that in the morning on the date of incident the victim stated nothing in her statement nor she stated that accused-appellant committed rape with her. She has been declared hostile. P.W.3 Pradeep Kumar, husband of the victim was not an eye witness as he was in a job in a private firm at Bangalore. When he came he was informed by the victim. He has also stated that her wife said to him to implicate the accused-appellant in such offence; so that he may not trouble her further. These witnesses have also

¶13

been declared hostile on being cross-examined by the prosecution. Nothing has come in their cross-examination which could support the prosecution version.

¶14

It appears strange that when the victim and other 2 witnesses have been declared hostile even then the trial court has referred to the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C and on that basis convicted the appellant. During the trial the previous statements recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. can be used only for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction. On the basis of statement given under section 164 Cr.P.C.,no conclusion can be arrived at to hold the accused guilty of the said offence beyond shadow of any doubt. In view of this, I find that there is no evidence on record on the basis of which accused-appellant could have been convicted by the learned trial court. There is apparent illegality and perversity in the impugned judgement which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶15

In view of the above, the criminal appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgement of learned trial court dated 19.04.2018 is set aside. Consequently, the accusedappellant, Ajeet Alias Kharku Chauhan , is hereby acquitted from the charge under section 376 and 506 IPC.

¶16

Let the record of the learned trial court be returned back along with a copy of this judgement for information and necessary compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.5.2019

¶18

PKC

Ajeet Alias Kharku Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Alias Kharku Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Hasim Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Kumar Parashar Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. through C.B.I., a.C.B., Lucknow

Zaqir Vs State of U.P.

Javed Vs State of U.P.