Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1226 (JHR)

Poonam Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-21

ANANDA SEN, H.C.MISHRA

body2017
ORDER : I.A. No. 6171 of 2016 This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 71 days in filing this acquittal appeal. In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application, the delay of 71 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. This interlocutory application is accordingly, allowed. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 98 of 2016 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. This acquittal appeal is directed against the Judgment of acquittal dated 23.09.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C., Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No. 348 of 2010, whereby the accused-respondent No. 2, who was put to trial for the offence under Section 376 / 511 of the Indian Penal Code and accused-respondent Nos. 2 & 3, who were put for trial for the offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted of the charges after trial. 3. According to the prosecution story, the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the written report given by the victim herself on 20.03.2009, wherein she stated that she was in acquaintance with respondent No. 2 Manish Kumar since long, but he always wanted to misuse the said acquaintance. She alleged that for about two years he started to utter vulgar words on phone and he compelled her to spend nights with him even by giving threatenings. The informant disclosed these things in her family and her father went to Ranchi to counsel the accused Manish Kumar and his father Tarini Prasad Kamat, but Tarini Prasad misbehaved with him and also gave threatening to lift the girl. About 15 days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R., Manish Kumar and his father had intercepted the informant in Sector-IX and Tarini Prasad had threatened that his son will spare her only if her father gives Rs. 1,00,000/-, otherwise they will make her life hell. It is also alleged that on 05.02.2009, an attempt was made by respondent No. 2 Manish Kumar and one another person, to commit rape upon her, but due to the alarm raised by her, the accused persons fled away. On the basis of the F.I.R, investigation was taken up and charge sheet was submitted. 4. It is also alleged that on 05.02.2009, an attempt was made by respondent No. 2 Manish Kumar and one another person, to commit rape upon her, but due to the alarm raised by her, the accused persons fled away. On the basis of the F.I.R, investigation was taken up and charge sheet was submitted. 4. In course of trial, six witnesses were examined by the prosecution side and five witnesses were examined by the defence side, apart from the documents exhibited from both the sides. The Court below, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, particularly the evidence of PW-4 the victim herself, found that the informant was in love with Manish Kumar since the year 2001 itself, and had also written love letters to him, the photocopies of which, were marked exhibits on her own admission. She had also stated that she did not remember as to how long she wrote love letters to Manish. The Court below has also found that the both the parties were in contact from the year 2001 itself, and the alleged harassment has started much prior to lodging of the F.I.R., but no case was instituted till the year 2009 by the victim girl. Even the F.I.R. about the present case was lodge after undue delay. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Court below has acquitted the respondents of the charges after trial. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the witnesses have proved the allegations made in the F.I.R., and there was no occasion for the Trial Court to acquit the accused-respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned Judgment, we find that the Court below has discussed the evidence on record meticulously and had acquitted the accused-respondents. We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment worth interference by this Court. 8. Even otherwise, though this appeal was filed on 04.02.2016 itself, but in spite of four long adjournments given by this Court, no application seeking leave to file appeal against the Judgment of acquittal has yet been filed in this case, in absence of which this appeal cannot be entertained. 9. 8. Even otherwise, though this appeal was filed on 04.02.2016 itself, but in spite of four long adjournments given by this Court, no application seeking leave to file appeal against the Judgment of acquittal has yet been filed in this case, in absence of which this appeal cannot be entertained. 9. We do not find any merit in this acquittal appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.