The High Court dismissed the State's appeal at the stage of admission. The Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the trial court's acquittal was well-reasoned and no cogent reasons existed to set aside the judgment.
Leave to appeal was refused; the appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission.
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. - 255 of 2021
Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Lal Singh Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
[By Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J.]
In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. nil of 2021
Heard learned A.G.A. on the delay condonation application.
This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State on 06.08.2021 against the judgement and order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, District Pilibhit.
The reason for delay has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Order on Appeal
Heard learned A.G.A. on the question of admission of the appeal.
By means of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment and order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, District Pilibhit, in Special Session Trial No. 82 of 2016 - State of U.P. Vs. Lal Singh. By the impugned judgement, the trial court had acquitted the accused from the charges under Section 376 I.P.C., Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(1) (12) of the SC/ST Act.
It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The trial court has not accepted the prosecution version in the correct perspective and hence, erroneously acquitted the accusedrespondent. Therefore, the judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
The case of the complainant is that when he had gone to the
market along with his mother, elder brother - Pappu Arya and five years' old daughter, Sheetal and they were engaged in purchasing, he heard crying of his daughter and when they reached the spot they found that the underwear of his daughter was bloodstained . The accused-Lal Singh ran away from the spot and the complainant lodged first information report against Lal Singh in the above mentioned sections.
During evidence, P.W. 1-complainant and the victim - his daughter both had not supported the prosecution version. The complainant said that he had not seen the accused committing rape on her daughter. He lodged the first information report as per version of his mother and brother. The victim girl after examination by Court had deposed in her evidence that she was injured while she was playing. Her father took her to the doctor. She had given evidence as she was told to depose in the Court by her father. Thus, it is clear that neither the complainant nor the victim has supported the prosecution version. The victim is a tutored witness and the complainant had given hearsay evidence. P.W. 3, mother of the complainant had stated that the victim had told her that Lal Singh had raped her while the victim herself denied this version. No other eye witness had been produced. There is no other evidence on record. Thus, the prosecution evidence on the record is not sufficient to prove the accused to be guilty.
The arguments of the learned A.G.A. are, thus, not convincing.
We do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. The judgment is well reasoned. The leave to appeal is hereby refused. The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.
Order Date :- 3.9.2021 gp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned trial court properly appreciated the evidence and correctly acquitted the accused from the charges.
Whether there are cogent reasons to interfere in the impugned judgment of acquittal.
Whether the delay condonation application preceding the appeal was entertained by the trial court.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
State of U.P.
Lal Singh
Sunita Agarwal
Sadhna Rani Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Sunita Agarwal and Sadhna Rani Thakur
