The Allahabad High Court refused leave to the State to appeal against an acquittal of the respondent. The Court held that the trial court's view was permissible and no perversity was shown, thus the appeal was dismissed.
Prayer for grant of leave to appeal was refused; appeal dismissed.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155056-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 332 of 2023
Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Ajay Singh S/O Late Vijay Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
This appeal is by State alongwith an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 25.1.2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Fatehpur, in Special Sessions Trial No.21 of 2017 (State Vs. Ajay Singh), arising out of Case Crime No.347 of 2016, under Section 504, 506, 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Husainganj, District Fatehpur.
Victim is the informant in this case, who has lodged the report on the basis of a direction issued by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The victim is 28 years old lady, who has alleged that on 19.6.2016 at about 7.00 pm she had gone to offer prayers on the Samadhi and while she was returning the accused got hold of her and took her to a secluded place, where she was subjected to sexual assault. The husband of the victim later tried to raise protest with the accused but he too was threatened. The accused was aware of the caste of the victim and that is why the offence was committed upon her. The investigation concluded with submission of a chargesheet against the accused under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act.
The trial proceeded after the accused denied the charges, wherein the victim has appeared as PW-1. She has supported the prosecution case as has been set out in the written report. She has also stated that though a complaint was made before the Superintendent of Police but not action was taken, on account of which she was compelled to lodge an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The prosecution has produced other witnesses including doctor, who had examined the victim and found her to be 28 years of age and carrying pregnancy of 36 weeks. No external or internal injuries were found on the victim. Other witnesses were formal in nature.
The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied his implication and has stated that one Shobhit Singh
had lost the election against him for the post of Pradhan, on account of which the lost candidate has set up the victim to lodge a false complaint against him. He has also asserted that the complainant and her husband are residents of other village and the lost candidate Shobhit Singh had provided them space to live and that is why under his influence a false accusation is made by the victim. The victim in her cross-examination has also admitted that she had gone with her husband and the lost candidate Shobhit Singh to the Advocate, who had secured her signatures on blank pages for filing application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Even in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has not fully supported the prosecution case and various contradictions have been noticed by the trial court in order to disbelieve the testimony of the victim. Upon evaluation of evidence so led in the matter the trial court has thus come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has, accordingly, acquitted the accused.
We have been taken through the judgment by the learned AGA, who submits that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and that the findings returned by the court below are perverse.
We have carefully examined the judgment of the court below and upon its examination we find that the view taken by the court below is clearly a permissible view, in the facts of the case, and just because a different view could be taken would ordinarily not be a ground for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal. In such circumstances we find that neither any triable issue is raised before us in this appeal nor any perversity is shown, which may persuade this Court to grant leave to assail the judgment of acquittal. Prayer made by the State for grant of leave is, accordingly, refused and the appeal, consequently, fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Anil
Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should grant leave to appeal against the trial court's judgment of acquittal under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.?
Whether the High Court can interfere when the trial court's view is permissible though a different view could have been taken?
7 provisions across 3 enactments
State of U.P.
Ajay Singh
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
