Dismissed

State of Up v. Subhash S/O Ram Chandra

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2025GOVA/84/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this leave to appeal against acquittal in a rape and POCSO case, the appellant challenged the trial court's reliance on oral testimony over documentary evidence to determine the prosecutrix's age. The High Court held that since the occurrence itself was not proven, the age issue was extraneous. Finding the prosecutrix's testimony self-contradicted, the court dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal denied; appeal proceedings dismissed; acquittal upheld.

State of Up vs Subhash S/O Ram Chandra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9435-DB

¶2

Court No. - 45

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 84 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Subhash S/O Ram Chandra Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Patanjali Mishra alongwith Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned AGA for the State and perused the leave to appeal.

¶7

Present appeal has been filed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 11.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Rape & POCSO Act) Court No.2, Pilibhit in Special Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Subhash), arising out of Case Crime No. 189 of 2019, under Sections - 363, 344, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Puranpur, District - Pilibhit.

¶8

Submission is, the learned court below has erred in reaching a conclusion that the prosecutrix was not a minor, by relying on her oral testimony. Heavy reliance has been placed on the documentary evidence in the shape of school register to establish that date of birth of the prosecutrix as recorded in that record is 05.04.2006. Therefore, on the date of occurrence (18.09.2019), she was barely 13 years of age.

¶9

As to the occurrence or rape, reliance has been placed on the FIR allegation as duly proven by PW-1 (father of the prosecutrix) and the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Also, learned AGA has sought to rely on the statement of the prosecutrix recorded at the trial.

¶10

Insofar as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, learned AGA may be right in his contention that the learned court below has erred in referring to the oral testimony. However, that

¶11

may not be decisive as to leave to appeal sought. That may be granted only if the finding of the learned court below as to the occurrence is found to be erroneous. Unless an offence is shown to have committed, the age of the prosecutrix would remain an extraneous issue.

¶12

As to the occurrence, the prosecutrix had described that she had been abducted by Subhash and confined for almost 15 days where she was subjected to repeated rape. No other allegation or offence is described to have been committed. In that regard, the prosecutrix was subjected to extensive cross-examination. In that she stated, she was married and that for reason of some petty quarrel with her parents she left for her sister's home. Later, she stated, she had gone to her sister (Suman) and her brother-in-law at Jamunia. She clarified, even during that period she did not meet Subhash and further stated she had no relation with Subhash and had never meet him. In face of such evidence led by the prosecutrix, the learned court below has disbelieved the prosecution story of abduction and rape committed on the prosecutrix. After that statement was made by the prosecutrix in her cross-examination, no further examination was sought and she was not confronted with the previous statement made by her with respect to that occurrence.

¶13

It is also noted, there is no evidence other than the oral testimony of the prosecutrix was led to establish the occurrence involving offence of abduction and rape. PW-1 was not an eyewitness of the occurrence inasmuch as according to the FIR allegation, the prosecutrix was abducted when she had gone up to attend call of nature.

¶14

Having heard learned AGA for the State and having perused the record, at present, we find that solitary testimony of the prosecutrix was self contradicted. Though she did support the allegation of abduction and rape initially, yet, later she

¶15

completely denied such occurrence. In fact, she specifically stated, she had left for and stayed at her sister's place at Jamunia when the occurrence is being alleged. Also, she completely denied her relations and acquaintance with Subhash and further stated that she did not make any allegation against the said accused Subhash.

¶16

In view of such facts, the issue of age relied by the learned AGA is of no relevance. The judgement and order of the learned court below on the substantive issue of offence is based on appraisal of material and evidence on record. It calls for no interference.

¶17

Accordingly, the leave to appeal is denied and the present proceedings are dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Abhilash

¶19

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

State of Up v. Subhash S/O Ram Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Up v. Subhash S/O Ram Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The District Advocates Association and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

The District Advocates Association and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

The District Advocates Association and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

Union of India through Its General Manager, North Central Railway and 7 Others vs Sandeep Kunwar Singh and 9 Others

The District Advocates Association and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

The District Advocates Association and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others