Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Rajat Katiyar and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2021GOVA/257/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal against an order quashing delay condonation. In a related judgment discussed, the Court upheld the acquittal of accused persons in a POCSO and abetting kidnapping case, citing contradictions in the victim's evidence and absence of medical injuries.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed at the stage of admission.

State of U.P. Vs Rajat Katiyar and 2 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 44 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 257 of 2021

¶2

Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Rajat Katiyar And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶3

[By Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J.]

¶4

In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. nil of 2021

¶5

Heard learned A.G.A. on the delay condonation application.

¶6

This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State on 06.08.2021 against the judgement and order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad.

¶7

The explanation for delay are that the delay had occurred in getting administrative sanction which prolonged due to the pandemic Covid-19 as the entire machinery was paralysed for some time and the courts were also closed.

¶8

The reason for delay has been sufficiently explained. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶9

Order on Appeal

¶10

Heard learned A.G.A. on the admission of appeal.

¶11

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Special Session Trial No. 20 of 2015 - State of U.P. Vs. Rajat Katiyar and 2 others, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. By the impugned judgement, the trial court had acquitted the accused from the charges in the above mentioned sections.

¶12

It is argued by the learned A.G.A. that the trial court had committed gross error in disbelieving the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and giving importance to the version of the defence. The prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The trial court has not weighted and assessed the prosecution evidence in the proper perspective and

¶13

erroneously acquitted the accused - respondents.

¶14

After hearing the learned A.G.A. and perusal of the record, we find that the allegations were that the daughter of the complainant was kidnapped with the intention of compelling her for marriage. The accused Rajat was said to have committed rape on the daughter of the complainant. As per the record, the date of birth of the victim girl is 05.05.2000, thus, on the date of the incident she was found to be 14 years 5 months and 9 days old.

¶15

Admittedly, there was no other eye witness of the incident. The victim, in her cross examination, had stated that on 14th October, 2014 at 10 a.m. she had gone to Awas Vikas, Lok Vani Kendra to fill her scholarship form. There, she received the phone call of accused Rajat. She reached Lalgate on the asking of the accused where other accused persons were also present. The accused persons forcibly made her sit in a bus and took her to Delhi. In Greater Noida, she was kept in a rented room in the village Akshar. Accused Rajat forcefully put sindoor in her hair and forcibly made physical relations. She opposed raising noise but nobody saved her. Rest of the accused persons used to beat her and after about five months. On March 15, while they were taking her to Farrukhabad, she along with accused Rajat were caught by the police. In her evidence, it has come that the accused and the victim met in a coaching centre where both of them were studying.

¶16

If we go through the first information report the time of incident is mentioned as 2 o'clock in the afternoon whereas the victim in her statement disclosed the time of incident as 10 a.m. She says that she was kept in a room where all the accused persons were present. It is neither believable nor possible that accused Rajat made forcible physical relations with the victim in the presence of other accused persons in a small rented room. It is then stated that she lived with the accused persons for about five months but she never raised alarm in the public. When on March 15, she was recovered, accused Rajat was not with her. In her examination in chief, she had stated that on receiving phone call of Rajat she reached at Lalgate but in the cross examination at page-'4' she had stated that she did not keep the mobile phone on the date of incident and also otherwise, she was not having any mobile phone. That on the day of the incident, Rajat did not call her, and she did not talk to Rajat on the date of incident.

¶17

In her cross examination, the victim had stated that when she was travelling in the bus she was unconscious. She showed her ignorance in disclosing that how many passengers were travelling in the bus and whether she was sitting or lying in the

¶18

bus; where the bus was going and where she had boarded off from the bus. All these queries remained unanswered from the statement of the victim. Further the version of her being unconscious is not present in the first information report, her examination in chief or in any other statement.

¶19

As per the version of the P.W. 5, he had seen the victim going with the accused persons on 14.10.2014. As per the complainant, his brother P.W. 3 had informed him of this incident. Even then the first information report was registered after three days of the incident. All these circumstances of the case make the whole prosecution story suspicious. There is vast contradiction in the chief and cross examination of the victim. Even in the medical examination, no sign of rape or any injury had been found by the doctor on her person. For the above, the prosecution story appears to be concocted and does not inspire confidence of the Court.

¶20

The argument of the learned A.G.A. do not seem to be forceful and trustworthy. The judgment of the trial court is found to be well reasoned.

¶21

We do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. The leave to appeal is, thus, refused. The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.9.2021 gp

State of U.P. v. Rajat Katiyar and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Rajat Katiyar and 2 Others

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

Mohd. Farhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Piyush Kant Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Farheen Firoz and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Babita Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

State of U.P. Vs Lal Singh

Anil Sen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others