Dismissed

Smt. Sunte v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2022JAPL/5284/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed the jail appeal filed by a woman convicted of kidnapping a four-year-old child. The court upheld the conviction under Sections 364 and 511 IPC and the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine, rejecting arguments regarding delay in FIR and conflicting witness narratives.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld; appellant directed to serve remaining sentence.

Smt. Sunte Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 91

¶3

Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 5284 of 2016

¶4

Appellant :- Smt. Sunte Respondent :- State of U.P.

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail,Nigamendra Shukla

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶9

2. This jail appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Smt. Sunte before this Court being referred by the Superintendent, District Jail, Ghaziabad on an application dated 24.07.2016 against her conviction and sentence vide order dated 14.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No.908 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Smt. Sunte) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 364 read with Section 511 I.P.C. to 05 years rigorous imprisonment & fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months additional imprisonment. The trial court has extended the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. to the appellant.

¶10

3. An undated application was given by Israr to S.H.O., Police Station Tronica City, District Ghaziabad alleging therein that on 13.06.2015 at about 12:20 pm his daughter Isha aged about 04 years had gone to bring bread from the shop of Talib. She did not return since long time after which he went out and saw that his daughter was in the lap of a lady who was forcefully taking her away, she was crying. The first informant raised hue and cry on which lot of people of the area collected and along with the help of Sahid, Jamil, Khanak and Imran apprehended the woman and

¶11

¶12

took the child from her. On asking her she disclosed her name as Smt. Sunte wife of Mamute resident of Mohalla Vijay Vihar Jhuggi Jhopri, Ghaziabad. The first informant has come to the police station. He states that the lady had kidnapped his daughter and was taking her away. The first information report is thus lodged. The said application is Exb: Ka-1 to the records.

¶13

4. On the basis of the said application, a chik first information report was lodged at the police station on 13.06.2015. at 14:30 hours as Case Crime No. 372 of 2015, under Section 364 / 511 I.P.C., Police Station Tronica City, District Ghaziabad. The same is Exb: Ka-2 to the records.

¶14

5. The police prepared a recovery memo with regard to the accusedappellant which is Exb: Ka-4 to the records. A recovery memo with regard to the girl child was also prepared which is Exb: Ka-5 to the records. Both the said documents are dated 13.06.2015.

¶15

6. The investigation concluded and a charge-sheet No. 139 of 2015 dated 21.06.2015, under Section 364 / 511 I.P.C. was filed against the appellant. The same is Exb: Ka-7 to the records.

¶16

7. Vide order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.7- Ghaziabad charge was framed against the accused-appellant under Section 364 / 511 I.P.C. She denied the same and claimed to be tried.

¶17

8. Before the trial court, the accused-appellant moved an application that facility of an Advocate on Government expenses be provided to her which was allowed by the trial court dated 08.02.2016 and an Amicus Curiae was appointed on her behalf.

¶18

9. In the trial, Israr, the first informant and father of the girl was examined as P.W.-1, Jamil was examined as P.W.-2 and Sahid was examined as P.W.-3, both the said persons along with the first informant

¶19

¶20

had apprehended the accused-appellant and had rescued the victim girl. Prem Singh the Head Constable who transcribed the chik first information report was produced and examined as P.W.-4 and lastly Iftekhar Qureshi, Sub-Inspector who was investigating officer was produced and examined as P.W.-5.

¶21

10. The accused in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that she has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has not done anything illegal. She is a poor and innocent lady. She states that false case has been lodged against her and a false recovery has been shown. No defence evidence was led by her.

¶22

11. The trial court after going through the evidence on record and perusing the entire documents came to conclusion that the prosecution has been successful in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant and convicted as stated above. The present jail appeal has thus been filed against the said judgement and order of conviction.

¶23

12. At this point, it would be apt to state that the appellant was in jail throughout the period of trial and even after conviction.

¶24

13. Israr is the first informant and father of the girl. He in his statement has stated that on 13.06.2015 at about 12:20 pm his daughter aged about 04 years had gone to the shop of Talib to purchase bread. When she did not return since a long time he came out and saw that one lady had picked up his daughter in her lap and was going somewhere. The girl was shouting. He raised a shout on which many people of the village came. He, Shahid, Jamil, Khanak and Imran apprehended the said woman and rescued his daughter. On asking her name, she disclosed her name as Smt. Sunte and told her husband’s name and address. He along with other persons then brought the accused to the police station. He dictated an application to someone which was transcribed which he gave for lodging of the first information report. He proves the same. He states that Smt.

¶25

¶26

Sunte had kidnapped his daughter on13.06.2015. The police arrested the accused in his presence and prepared a recovery memo of his daughter on which he signed as a witness.

¶27

14. Jamil, P.W.-2 is also a resident of the same village and neighbour of Israr, P.W.-1. He is a witness of the rescue of the victim girl and was also instrumental in apprehending the accused. He reiterates the further version as stated by Israr P.W.-1.

¶28

15. Shahid, P.W.-3 is also neighbour of Israr, P.W.-1. He also reiterates the said version as stated by Jamil, P.W.-2.

¶29

16. Prem Singh, Head Constable, P.W.-4 transcribed the chik first information report of the case. He proves the same. He also prepared the arrest memo of the accused which has been proved by him. 17. Iftekar Qureshi, P.W.-5 is the Investigating Officer. He investigated and subsequently submitted charge-sheet No. 139 of 2015. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the alleged incident in the present case is of 13.06.2015 at about 12:20 pm for which the first information report purports to have been lodged on the same day i.e. 13.06.2015 at about 14:30 hours at the police station Tonica City by IsrarP.W.-1. It is argued that distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is one km and as such there has been an enormous delay in lodging of the first information report. It is argued that the first informantP.W.-1 has in his cross-examination stated that when the accusedappellant was apprehended and his daughter was rescued, someone amongst the persons of the locality called up the police who had reached the place of occurrence and was present there but even in spite of the same, the first information report has been lodged after about 02 hours. It is argued that the case simplicitor of the prosecution is that the accusedappellant had picked up the victim who is daughter of the first informant and had taken her in her lap after which she was apprehended and the

¶30

¶31

victim girl was rescued. It is argued that except for this there is no other case of the prosecution as to why the same was done by the appellantaccused and what was the apprehension by the persons of any untoward being done by the accused-appellant. It is argued that even the stances put to the accused-appellant by the prosecution while examining the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that the accused-appellant had picked up the victim girl in her lap and was making an effort to take her away. It is argued that beyond this there is nothing which the prosecution has come up. Learned counsel has argued that even otherwise, the place of occurrence is stated to be outside the house of the first informant. The prosecution has not imputed any allegation upon the accused-appellant that kidnapping was for murder or any other purpose and even otherwise there was only an attempt for the same and as such the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced with the aid of Section 511 I.P.C. It is argued that the appellant had been in jail throughout the period of trial and even after the conviction and sentence as would appear from the impugned judgement and order which states that the accused-appellant is present before the court from jail and then she was heard on the question of sentence and then was sentenced. It is argued that there is material contradiction in so far as the version of the actual incident is concerned, as in the first information report the case as set by the prosecution is that the accused-appellant picked up the victim in her lap forcibly and was taking her away but in the cross-examination of the first informant it is stated that when the victim girl came out of the house then the appellant had snatched her from the people after which his wife took her in her lap. It is argued that in so far as the actual incident is concerned, there has been conflicting stances.

¶32

19. Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and argued that the appellant was arrested from the spot and was handed over to the police. It is argued that

¶33

¶34

there are eye-witness account in the present matter. There is no reason for false implication. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The present appeal thus deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

20. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶36

21. The impugned judgement and order of conviction is upheld. The appellant shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence as awarded, if not already served.

¶37

22. The copy of this judgement along with the lower court records be sent to the court below for its information & compliance.

¶38

Order Date :- 1.8.2022 AS Rathore

¶39

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.08.31 17:25:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Sunte v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunte 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

Yameen Vs State of U.P.

Gurpreet Singh Vs C.B.I New Delhi

Zahiruddin Khan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation.

Dilip Kumr Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Yunus and Others Vs State of U.P.

Shailesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others