PATNA, India, Oct. 31 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Oct. 10:
The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment of acquittal dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Exclusive POCSO Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge VI, Kaimur at Bhabhua in POCSO Case No. 16 of 2021, arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2021 whereby Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted by the learned trial Court from the charge of Sections 363/34, 341/34, 323/34, 376D of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim girl has alleged that she is 17 years old and is resident of Sarai, Ramgarh. Further, it is stated that on May 14, 2021, at 8:00 am, her friend Khusbhoo Kumari called her near the Daitra Baba tree outside the village and she went there to meet her and was talking to her friend. Suddenly, a four-wheeler car came there and the people sitting in it forcibly made her sit in the car. No one could hear her voice as the glass of the car was closed. When she looked inside the car, Aniket Singh alias Golu and Dhiraj Singh alias Pinku were sitting in it. They took her to a secluded place around the Kudra petrol pump and raped her and asked her not to tell anyone. Somehow, on 15 May 2021, she escaped from the grip of these people and went to the petrol pump located at Kudra Bypass. Her family members who had been searching for her reached there. In the meantime, Aniket and Dhiraj also followed her to the petrol pump. From there, her family members caught them (both accused) and brought them to Ramgarh police station, but Dhiraj managed to escape.
3. On the basis of written statement of the informant, Mahila P.S. Case No. 30 of 2021 was instituted under Sections 323, 341, 363, 376/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and investigation was taken up by the police. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether ten prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1- Ranjeet Singh, PW2- the victim herself, PW3- Nitu Devi, PW4- Pinki Devi, PW5- Ajay Kumar Singh, PW6- Pramod Singh, PW7- Deepak Kumar and PW8- Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, PW9- Dr. Madhu Yadav and PW10- Punam Kumari (I.O.). The prosecution has also produced certain documents which were marked as 'Exhibits' i.e., Ext. P1- Written information, Ext. P2- Signature of victim on her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, Ext. P3- Signature of Pinki Devi on the medical report of the victim, Ext. P4- Signature of PW6 Pramod Singh on seizure list, Ext. P4/1- Signature of PW7 Deepak Kumar on seizure list, Ext. P4/2- Signature of PW8 Pankaj Kumar Choudhary on seizure list, Ext. P5- Medical Report of the victim, Ext. P6- Signature of Dr. Madhu Yadav on the age determination report, Ext. P7- Seizure List, Ext. P8- Endorsement on written application, Ext. P9- Formal FIR, Ext. P10- Provisional Certificate of the victim, Ext. P11- Marksheet of the vicitm, Ext. P12- Statements of the vicitm u/s 164 Cr.P.C., Ext. P13- FSL report. The defence has also examined three witnesses i.e., DW1- Heeralal, DW2- Chinta Devi, DW3- Jitendra Singh. The defence has also produced certain documents which were marked as 'Exhibits' i.e., Ext. D1- Entries on the admission register of Utkramit Madhya Vidyaly, Sarai, Ext. D2- Signature of the then principal on Exhibit D1/DW1. The prosecution has also examined four court witnesses i.e., CW1- Upendra Singh, the Principal of Brilliant Public School, Dewhaliya, CW2- Heeralal, I/C Headmaster of Utkramit Madhya Vidyalay, Sarai, CW3- Dr. Avinash Bahadur and CW4- Dr. Rajnikant Ranjan. The court witnesses have also produced certain documents which were marked as 'Exhibits' i.e., Ext. C1- Entries in Admission Register related to admission of victim in Brilliant Public School on 03.05.2013, Ext. C2 to Ext. C2/15- Attendance Registers of Brilliant Public School, Ext. C3 to Ext. C3/5- Fee Registers of Brilliant Public School related to the victim, Ext. C4 to Ext. C4/3- Attendance Registers of Utkramit Madhya Vidyalay, Sarai, Ext. C5- Signature of Dr. Avinash Bahdur on age determination report and Ext. C6- Age determination report of the victim. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused persons.
5. The learned trial Court on the basis of the materials available on record, and the evidence produced before the Court, acquitted the accused persons observing that there is no evidence at all against the accused persons to prove the charge framed u/s 341 and 323 IPC. Likewise the charges u/s 363 would also not be applicable as the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim is below 18 years at the time of occurrence, hence POCSO would also not be applicable. The trial Court also observed that the elopement of the victim is voluntary, and even presuming the culpability of the accused persons in it, the facts of forceful compulsion or inducement by any deceitful means have not been proved.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court has miserably failed to scrutinize the evidence of interested defence witnesses and court witnesses with care and circumspection and it is pertinent to state that the conclusion arrived by the learned trial Court is perverse and against the evidence on record.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM2OSMyMDI0IzEjTg==-ekboeJ3Y88U=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
