Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 20 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Rajkumar Maurya @ Lalalram

2016-01-05

PRATYUSH KUMAR, SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE

body2016
JUDGMENT The instant Government Appeal, filed on behalf of the State, is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.09.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 7000739 of 2010 [State Vs. Raj Kumar Maurya @ Lala Ram and two others], whereby all the accused-respondents were acquitted from the charges framed against them. 2. Heard Sri A.M. Upadhyay, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-appellant and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the impugned judgment is against the material available on record, minor contradictions have been erroneously treated to be major and made ground to acquit the accused-respondents. The judgment is against the law, full of legal infirmities which amounts to perversity and deserves to be set aside. 4. Briefly stated on 05.11.2009, the daughter of first informant aged about 14 years was enticed away by the accused-respondent no.1 and accused-respondent nos. 2 and 3 colluded with him. She also took some money from her house, chik was scribed, matter was investigated and all the three accused-respondents were charge-sheeted. Against them charges under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B I.P.C. were framed and on their denial prosecution adduced documentary as well as oral evidence. On behalf of the accused-respondents allegations were denied and Ram Chandra was examined as D.W.1. 5. The material witnesses, namely, Munna Lal P.W.1 (first informant), victim P.W.2 and Smt. Raj Kumari P.W.3 (mother of the victim), Smt. Shiv Kali P.W.4, the witness of the fact that accused-respondent no. 1 was in the company of the victim on the date she was taken away. 6. In the medical evidence, no opinion about rape was given and her age was estimated to be 16 years. 7. All the witnesses have supported the prosecution version. However, the learned trial Judge has noticed that the victim could not give consistent account during her confinement by accused-respondent no. 1, her statement was found full of contradictions, mother and father of the victim were found not material for the purpose, evidence of Shiv Kali P.W.4 was also disbelieved on account of discrepancies in her statement with the statement of victim P.W.2. 8. The learned trial Judge has also noticed this fact that there may be variation of 1-2 years in the age determined by the radiological investigation. 8. The learned trial Judge has also noticed this fact that there may be variation of 1-2 years in the age determined by the radiological investigation. On account of the fact that the victim had taken money from her house, the learned trial Judge has found her to be a consenting party. 9. When findings of the learned trial Judge are examined in the light of the material available on record and arguments advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate, we come to the conclusion that each findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are possible conclusions. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be not supported by reasons or material available on record. 10. It is well settled law that if the view formed by the learned trial Judge is also a possible view, the leave to appeal would not be granted only on the possibility of other views. 11. In view of the above, the arguments advanced in support of the appeal are without substance. The Government Appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, leave to appeal is declined and consequently the Government Appeal is also dismissed.