The State appealed against the acquittal of Maan Singh and Smt. Maya Devi for kidnapping and rape. The court upheld the acquittal, noting lack of medical evidence regarding the victim's age and injuries, and found the lower court's view plausible.
Government appeal dismissed; impugned judgment upholding acquittal affirmed; stay order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 44
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 5354 of 2007
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Maan Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1- Heard Sri D.N. Tiwari (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.
2- This Government appeal has been preferred (under Section 378 Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order dated 23.4.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Agra in S.T. No. 418 of 2005, arising out of Case Crime No. 197 of 2004, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station Atmaddaula, District Agra whereby opposite party no.1 Maan Singh and opposite party no. 2 Smt. Maya Devi were acquitted under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and co-accused Dharmjeet @ Pappu was died. Hence the appeal against Dharmjeet @ Pappu is abated.
3- According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons, Dharmjeet @ Pappu, Maan Singh and Smt. Maya alleging that they kidnpped and raped the minor girl of the complainant. In the F.I.R. it is specifically stated that Dharmjeet @ Pappu, brother-in-law, (Jija) had raped her without her consent and will.
4- A case was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and charges were framed against opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for opposite parties and District Government Counsel (Criminal), the impugned judgment was passed. Hence this Government appeal.
5- Learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned judgment was passed wrongly and is against the evidence on record and law. There is sufficient evidence to convict the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 but they were acquitted.
6- From perusal of the record, it transpires that specific allegation of rape is made against co-accused Dharmjeet @ Pappu. According to medical report, the age of the prosecutrix was found 19 years of age, hence offence under Section 363 I.P.C. is not made out. Some school certificate was filed alleging therein that prosecutrix was minor but that was disbelieved by the court concerned. The case of the prosecutrix
was not supported by medical report. No injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix. The Pathology report was also found negative. No evidence of rape was found against opposite party nos. 1 & 2.
7- Opposite party no.2 is a lady. There is major contradiction between the oral evidence and medical evidence as well as statement of the prosecutrix and the statements of her family members.
8- The view taken by the court below is a plausible view. Hence no interference is called for in Government appeal.
9- This Court finds no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment. The Government appeal is dismissed.
10- Stay order, if any, is vacated.
11- Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned along with lower court record immediately for compliance and necessary action.
12- Application for leave to appeal is rejected and the Government appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.4.2019 OP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC is sustainable and requires interference in appeal.
Whether the contradiction between oral evidence and medical evidence justifies the acquittal.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
State Of U.P.
Maan Singh
Smt. Maya Devi
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
