Girish Kumar vs State of U.P.

This appeal against acquittal was taken up by the Court on 25.4.2014 when it was adjourned for 5.5.2014. Again the counsel for the appellant did not argue out the matter and sent an illness slip and therefore, vide order dated 5.5.2014, it was directed to be listed peremptorily in the next cause list. Thereafter it has come on the cause list on more than three occasions but it was not argued out. Today also none has appeared for the appellant even in the revised list.

Heard learned AGA and perused the record.

This appeal is against the acquittal of the accused respondents vide judgment dated 18.1.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Firozabad u/s 376(2) G of I.P.C. corresponding to Case Crime No. 80 of 2012 of Police Station, Fariha, District Firozabad.

The case set up by the prosecution was that the 14 years old daughter of the appellant was going to the field for cutting grass on 11.4.2012 at about 5:00 AM when she was accosted by the accused persons out of them Brijesh raped her in the field after tying her hands and legs while the other accused persons supported him. It was further said that certain persons while crossing the field saw the girl and opened her hands and legs and informed the mother of the victim who informed the father whereafter the first information report was lodged by the father. The statement of the girl was also recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and after investigation the accused persons were put up for trial.

Before the trial court all the witnesses including the complainant, the mother and the persons who allegedly had recovered her did not support the prosecution version. Even the victim did not support the prosecution story and admitted during examination that the accused used to come their house often and she had given her statement under duress. The trial court after noting that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution version, rendered the judgment of acquittal.

Learned AGA has urged that in view of the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the court ought to have discussed the issue in detail. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence and the main evidence i.e. the medical report clearly shows that the alleged victim was about 18 years old and used to sexual intercourse. The medical examination also did not reveal any injury which could correspond or support the story set up by the prosecution.

Considering all the aforesaid facts, the court is not inclined to grant leave.

Accordingly, the appeal is summarily dismissed.