State of U.P. vs Surendra Kumar Vishwakarma

This leave to appeal arises out of a judgment dated 11.08.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-IV), Court Nos. 13, Sultanpur, in Sessions Trial Nos. 58 of 2007 recording acquittal of the sole accused-respondent Surendra Kumar Vishwakarma in an offence registered u/s 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C.

As per prosecution case, the date of occurrence was 11.01.2007 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 12.01.2007. The prosecutrix was recovered two days after the lodgment of the F.I.R.

We have heard learned State Counsel and perused the trial court judgment.

Learned State Counsel submitted that the prosecutrix made categorical allegation against the accused in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which she supported in the examination-in-chief but later she turned hostile and denied the factum of commission of offence.

Admittedly as per record, the age of prosecutrix was between 20 to 21 years on the date of occurrence. In her medical examination no internal or external marks were found showing her resistance. Further in the medical examination, the age of the prosecutrix was found to be between 20 to 21 years, which is also supported by her High School certificate. Thus, we do not find any infirmity and perversity in the impugned judgment and findings of trial court which need not be interfered.

Moreover, the Apex Court in a number of decisions regarding interference with the judgment of acquittal has held that when two views are possible, the view taken by lower court in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the accused should be taken as the probable and reasonable view.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this leave to appeal. Hence, dismissed.