# Narendra Prasad (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 80
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4031 of 2019
- **Bench:** Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-prasad-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-47266
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 326-A, 504, 506
-
challenge
to-conviction-prosecution
story
is
not
supported
with
the
prosecution witnesses-witnesses turned
hostile-delay of 4 days in lodging FIR
seems to be afterthought-it casts doubt
on the prosecution story-moreso, on the
date of occurrence accused was in Delhi,
far from the place of occurrence about
1000 km-father and mother of the victim
are
interested
witnesses
and
their
testimony cannot be relied upon-plea of
alibi was also not considered by the trial
court-plea of alibi is the plea of defenceprosecution failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt-even if the plea
of alibi is taken by the accused, the
burden of proving the same cannot be
shifted upon the accused-trial court failed
to appreciate the evidence.(Para 1 to 27)

B. Plea of alibi means presence at
elsewhere. it is based on the physical
impossibility of participation in the crime
by the accused. burden of proving the
same shifts upon the accused; if the
prosecution succeeds in proving the case
beyond reasonable doubt.(Para 24)
The appeal is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)07ILR A80
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4031 of 2019

Narendra Prasad ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Kedar Nath Misra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 326-A, 504, 506
-
challenge
to-conviction-prosecution
story
is
not
supported
with
the
prosecution witnesses-witnesses turned
hostile-delay of 4 days in lodging FIR
seems to be afterthought-it casts doubt
on the prosecution story-moreso, on the
date of occurrence accused was in Delhi,
far from the place of occurrence about
1000 km-father and mother of the victim
are
interested
witnesses
and
their
testimony cannot be relied upon-plea of
alibi was also not considered by the trial
court-plea of alibi is the plea of defenceprosecution failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt-even if the plea
of alibi is taken by the accused, the
burden of proving the same cannot be
shifted upon the accused-trial court failed
to appreciate the evidence.(Para 1 to 27)

B. Plea of alibi means presence at
elsewhere. it is based on the physical
impossibility of participation in the crime
by the accused. burden of proving the
same shifts upon the accused; if the
prosecution succeeds in proving the case
beyond reasonable doubt.(Para 24)
The appeal is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Maqbool Vs U.P. & anr.(2019) CRLA No. 1143

2. Jayanti Bhai Bhayankar Bhai Vs St. of Guj.
(2002) AIR SC 3569

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.)

1. The instant Criminal Appeal is
against the judgment and order dated
30.3.2019 in Sessions Trial No. 104 of
2015 (State vs. Narendra Prasad) arising
out of Case Crime No. 1426 of 2014 under
sections 326-A,504 and 506 of IPC, P.S.
Gauri Bazar, District Deoria passed by IV
Additional
Sessions
Judge
(Essential
Commodities Act) Deoria whereby the
accused Narendra Prasad was held guilty
and was punished for the offence under
Sections 326-A of IPC with rigorous
imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs.
20,000/- in default of payment of fine, the
additional rigorous imprisonment of 4
months was to be undergone; for the
offence under section 504 of IPC was
punished with rigorous imprisonment of
one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of
payment of fine, 10 days additional
imprisonment was to be undergone; and for
the offence under section 506 of IPC was
punished with rigorous imprisonment of
one year and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of
payment of fine, 10 days additional
imprisonment was to be undergone. All
these sentences were directed to run
concurrently and the amount of Rs.
15,000/- out of the imposed amount of fine
was to be paid to the victim.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution
case are that the informant Smt. Neeraj
Devi moved a written information with the
police
station
concerned
with
these
7 All. Narendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
81
allegations that she was married with
Narendra
Prasad
resident
of
village
Patharhat, District Deoria four years ago.
At present she had been residing at the
parental house Village Chariaon Bujurg,
P.S.
Gauriganj,
District
Deoria.
Her
husband Narendra Prasad had thrown acid
on her body and face on

22.10.2014 at 10, O clock of
night while she was asleep whereby she
was bitterly scorched. After having thrown
acid on her and hurling filthy abuses her
husband fled away extending life threat.
Her husband had not permitted her to reside
in the matrimonial house and had also
criminally intimidated to her and her
children. She was rushed to the hospital for
treatment. After getting some relief this
report was given to the police station
concerned. It was written by Sanjay Kumar,
son of Chandra Bhan, resident of village
Chariaon Bujurg, P.S. Gauriganj, District
Deoria and same was singed by the
informant Smt. Neeraj Devi. On this
written information Case Crime No. 247 of
2014 was registered against Narendra
Prasad under sections 326-A, 504 and 506
of IPC with the Police Station Gauriganj,
District
Deoria
on
26.10.2014.The
Investing Officer after having concluded
investigation filed charge sheet against the
accused Narendra Prasad to the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, who took
cognizance on the charge sheet and
committed the same for trial to the court of
Sessions.

3. The trial court framed the charge
against the accused Narendra Prasad under
sections 326-A, 504 and 506 of IPC. The
charge was read over and explained to the
accused who denied the charge and
claimed to be tried.

4. On behalf of the prosecution to
prove the charge against the accused in
documentary evidence filed the written
information Exb.Ka-1, site plan of the
place of occurrence Exb.Ka-2, Chargesheet Exb. Ka-3, injury report of victim
Exb.Ka-4, GD entry in regard to registering
the case crime Exb. Ka-5, recovery memo
of taking into possession cloth of victim &
Laltain Exb. Ka-6 and check FIR Exb. Ka7.

5. In ocular evidence on behalf of
prosecution the following witnesses were
examined; PW-1 Smt. Neeraj Devi, PW-2
Smt. Subhawati Devi, PW-3 Chandra Bhan,
PW-4 SI Vinay Kumar Singh, PW-5 Dr.
Indra Dev Gaur and PW-6 H.C. Ram
Chandra Yadav, PW-7 Yogendra Singh and
CW-1 H.C. Brahma Nand Chaudhary.

6. The statement of accused Narenda
Prasad under section 313 of Cr.P.C., was
recorded
in
which
he
denied
the
incriminating
circumstances
in
the
evidence against him and stated that on the
date of occurrence he was in Delhi where
he had been residing since 2013 and he had
been falsely implicated in this case due to
enmity. On behalf of accused in defence
evidence examined DW-1 Ram Kishan and
DW-2 Ram Surat.

7. The trial court after hearing the
submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties passed judgment on 30.3.2019 and
convicted accused Narendra Prasad for the
aforesaid offence and punished as stated
above.
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Aggrieved by the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence this
criminal appeal has been preferred on
behalf of the appellant Narendra Prasad on
the ground that the impugned judgment is
illegal and is based on perverse finding.
The trial court did not appreciate the
evidence on record in proper perspective.
The prosecution story is not supported with
the prosecution witnesses. On the date of
occurrence appellant was in Delhi who had
been residing Delhi which is at the distance
of 1000 kms, from the place of occurrence.
The appellant came to know in regard to
occurrence at Delhi and reached Deoria.
Thereafter, surrendered himself before the
court on 23.1.2015 and since then has been
languishing in jail but the court below did
not believe in the defence evidence and
convicted the appellant on the wrong
appreciation of the evidence. Accordingly,
prayed to allow this criminal appeal and
set-aside the conviction and sentence
passed by the court below.

9. Heard Sri Kedar Nath Mishra,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Ashish Mani Tripathi, learned AGA for the
State and perused the lower court record.

10. On behalf of prosecution, to prove
the prosecution case in ocular evidence,
adduced PW-1 Smt. Neeraj Devi who is
victim of the occurrence, PW-2 Smt.
Subhawati Devi who is mother of the
victim and PW-3 Chandra Bhan, father of
victim and PW-7 Yogendra Singh as a
witness of fact.

11. PW-1 Smt. Neeraj Devi in her
statement says that the occurrence is of
22.10.2014 at 10.00-O Clock of night. She
was at her parental house in village
Chariaon Bujurg. Her husband Narendra
Prasad reached to her parental house at 10,
O Clock of night. She was lying on the cot
along with her child in the thatched roofhouse. Her husband hurling abuses and
extending life threat threw acid on her body
whereby she was burnt bitterly. Her
husband fled away from there. Her brother
and father both made effort to catch hold of
her husband. This occurrence was also seen
by her mother, father and uncle Ram
Sewak. She rushed to the hospital of Gauri
Bazar. After getting some relief, the FIR
was lodged and signed by her is Exb. Ka-1.

Again on 1.3.2016 this witness
was further cross examined and says that
on the date of occurrence she was sleeping
in the room. On throwing acid she cried,
her family members attracted there. She
could not know who had thrown acid on
her and also could not know who hurled
abuses and criminally intimidated to her
and she lodged FIR at the behest of
others. This witness was declared hostile
by the prosecution and was cross examined
on behalf of prosecution and further says
that the report was written by her
brother Sanjay Kumar and she put her
signature thereon. Her husband had illicit
relation with other women and with this
reason he usually beat her and ousted her
from matrimonial house. This witness was
also cross examined by the court below and
further
says
that
accused
Narendra
Prasad is her husband and he had
thrown acid on her. He never wanted to
keep her with him in the in-laws house
with this reason she had lodged the FIR.

12. PW-2 Smt. Subhawati Devi in
her statement says that at the time of
occurrence Laltain was being lit. Accused
Narendra Prasad came at 10, O Clock in
night and threw acid on the body of her
daughter. In the light of Laltain she
identified Narendra and family members
7 All. Narendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
83
also made effort to catch hold him. He fled
away hurling abuses and extending life
threat. In cross examination this witness
also further says that Narendra Prasad had
told to the Aunti of Smt. Neeraj Devi that
he wanted to disfigure the face of Smt.
Neeraj Devi and Aunti of Smt. Neeraj Devi
also told her in regard to the same. Smt.
Neeraj Devi remained in hospital over
night and next day she was brought to the
house. Due to financial duress no further
treatment was taken.

13. PW-3 Chandra Bhan in his
statement says that relation between Smt.
Neeraj and her husband was strained with
this reason, acid was thrown by Narendra
Prasad on the body of her daughter Smt.
Neeraj Devi. Her face, chest, eyes were
burnt. On her screaming, he attracted there
and made effort to catch Narendra Prasad
but he fled away. This witness in his cross
examination says that he awoke on her
screaming. He did not see throwing acid.
His son-in-law resided in Delhi and he
wants to get his daughter married with
some other person because of poverty of
Narendra Prasad.

14. PW-7 Yogendra Singh is the
witness of fact. This witness in his cross
examination says that he came to know in
regard to occurrence from the people of
the village who had told him that the
daughter of Chandra Bhan was burnt due
to acid throwing. He also reached to see
Smt. Neeraj Devi. Acid burnt injuries were
also on her body. He could not know by
whom the acid was thrown and this
witness also declared hostile by the
prosecution and denied to the statement
given to the Investing Officer under
section 161 Cr.P.C.

15. On behalf of prosecution to
prove the case with medical evidence also
examined PW-5 Indra Dev Gaur. This
witness medically examined Smt. Neeraj
Devi and proved the injury report
Exb.Ka-4 on 23.10.2014 at 2.10 p.m., and
in examination he found the following
injures:-

(1) Blue and black colour blisters
were present on both sides of face, chin,
both eyelids, front and left side of the neck,
left chest region, left shoulder, left arm pit,
left side of arm and occasional small
blisters were also present on the upper lip
and complaint was of pain and itching; and

(2) Complaint of diminishing eye
vision. In his opinion these injuries were
acid burnt. It was 15% and were likely to
be caused at 10, O clock of night on
22.10.2014.

In cross examination this witness
further says that after throwing acid the
mark of injury will initially be red and blue
and after six hours it will turn blue, black.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the FIR of this was lodged
belated of which there is no cogent
explanation on behalf of prosecution and
same makes the prosecution story dubious.

From the perusal of the FIR Exb.
Ka-4 it transpires that the occurrence is of
22.10.2014 at 10, O clock and the FIR was
lodged on 26.10.2014 at 10:30 hours with
the police station Gauri Bazar and the
distance of the police station from the place
of occurrence is 8 kms. The FIR version
itself explains the delay. It is noteworthy
that this FIR was lodged by the victim
herself and she says that due to acid burn
injury she was rushed to the hospital and
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
after getting relief from the burn injuries,
she moved the written information with the
police station concerned.

PW-2 Smt. Subhawati Devi in
her statement says that her daughter
remained in hospital over night and next
day she was brought to her house. No
further treatment was given to her due to
financial duress and on the next day from
the date of occurrence I.e. on 23.10.2014
the medical examination of her injuries was
conducted by PW-5 Doctor Indra Dev Gaur
and the FIR was lodged by the victim Smt.
Neeraj Devi on 26.10.2014, 4 days belated
from the date of occurrence which was also
written by the brother of informant Sanjay
Kumar who was also present at the house
on the date of occurrence. None of the
family members did lodge the FIR on the
very day of medical examination of
victim. The delay of 4 days from the date
of occurrence seems to be after thought
and same casts doubt on the prosecution
story.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant
also submitted that testimony of PW-1 Smt.
Neeraj Devi who is the victim is tainted.
There is contradiction in her statement.
During examination before the trial court
the statement of PW-2 Smt. Subhawati
Devi and PW-3 Chandra Bhan who are the
parents of the victim also did not
corroborate the statement of victim. These
three witnesses are interested witnesses and
their testimony can not be relied upon.
Moreover,
the
relations
between
the
accused and his wife being strained also
proves animosity and a ground for false
implication of the appellant.

18. Learned AGA opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the appellant and also submitted that the
testimony of witness has to be read as a
whole.
Minor
contradictions
in
the
statement are natural due to back-ground of
the witness in which he resides and also
time gap between the date of examination
of the witness and also the date of
occurrence.

19. It is settled law that the testimony
of witness has to be read as a whole. The
court can not draw the inference of any
single sentence uttered by the witness. In
her statement PW-1 Smt. Neeraj Devi who
is the victim of the occurrence accused her
husband. This witness in her statement
admits that the relations between her and
her husband were strained. Her husband
did not permit her to reside with him. So
she had been residing at her parental
house and on the date of occurrence she
was also at her parental house. Although
in
examination-in-chief
this
witness
supports the FIR case, yet in her cross
examination this witness also says that due
to throwing acid on her she cried, her
family members also attracted there. She
could not know by whom the acid was
thrown and abuses were hurled and who
had extended threat also. In cross
examination by the court this witness also
says that the acid was thrown by her
husband but her husband did not want to
keep her with him and used to beat her.
With this reason she has lodged FIR, as
such the statement of this witness bearing
contradiction in itself becomes tainted and
can not be said to be trustworthy.

So far as the statement of PW-3
Chandra
Bhan
is
concerned,
in
examination-in-chief this witness supports
the
prosecution
case
but
in
cross
examination this witness also says that he
woke up on hearing the screaming of her
daughter. He did not see any one
throwing acid as it was dark night he
could see nothing. He did not give
7 All. Narendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
85
statement to Darogaji. His son-in-law
resided in Delhi and he wants to get his
daughter married with some other
person because of poverty of Narendra
Prasad.

As such, the statement of this
witness also is tainted and same can not be
said to be trustworthy.

So far as the statement of PW-2
Smt. Subhawati Devi is concerned, this
witness supports the prosecution version and
in cross examination also says due to
throwing acid Smt. Neeraj Devi cried.
Hearing her screaming she, her dewar Ram
Kishun and her husband Chandra Bhan
attracted there. First of all, she, her husband
Chandra Bhan and Ram Kishun attracted
there. Besides them, Yogendra and Ram
Sewak also reached there. None could catch
Narendra Prasad. Narendra Prasad hurled
abuses and criminally intimidated. She can
not tell the reason why report was not
lodged immediately after the occurrence.

20. So far as the medical evidence is
concerned, PW-5 Dr. Indra Dev Gaur has
proved the injury report of victim Exb.
Ka-4 and says that blue and back colour
blisters
were
present
on
the
face,
chin,eyelid, neck, chest region, shoulder,
arm pit and complaint of diminishing
vision was made by the victim and she was
referred to expert opinion. Victim was 15%
acid burn.

21. In this context the provision of
section 326-A of I.P.C may be relevant to
consider which reads as under:-

"Section
326-A
Voluntarily
causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.

Whosoever causes permanent or
partial damage or deformity to, or burns
or maims or disfigures or disables, any
part or parts of the body of a person or
cause grievous hurt by throwing acid or by
administering acid to that person, or by
using any other means with the intention
of causing or with the knowledge that he
is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be
less than 10 years but which may extend
to imprisonment for life, and with fine:

Provided that such fine shall be
just and reasonable to meet the medical
expenses of the treatment of the victim:

Provided further that any fine
imposed under this section shall be paid
to the victim."

22. To attract the provisions of
Section 326-A of IPC it is not necessary
that the injury caused due to acid throwing
should be grievous only as is mentioned in
the heading of this section. In Section 326A of IPC there are shown eight kinds of
injuries, first seven injuries may be simple
or grievous in nature.

The Hon'ble Apex Court held in
para 7 of the Criminal Appeal No. 1143
of 2019 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.
7158 of 2019 Maqbool Vs. U.P. And
another vide judgment September 7, 2018.

"The first seven of the injuries
referred to in the Sections are classified
based on the normal aftereffect of acid
attack whereas the eighth one is on the
gravity of the effect. Under section 326-A
and 326-B grievous hurt is only one among
the
eight
injuries.
In
view
of
the
explanation under Section 326-B, the
resultant damage or deformity under 326A, Section 326-A or 326B is not required to
be irreversible. The other seven injuries
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
may be either simple or grievous. The
nature of injury being simple or grievous, is
irrelevant
for
distinguishing
between
Section 323 and Section 326-A of IPC or
between Section 326-A and Section 326-A
of IPC. If the injury referred to under
Section 326-A or 326-B is one among the
specified eight injuries, whether the seven
of them be simple or grievous, the special
provisions are attracted."

Therefore, even if the injuries
caused due to acid throwing are simple in
nature; but the same come within the
periphery of the offence of 326-A of IPC.
As such, from the medical evidence the
offence of 326-A of IPC is made out; but
who is the perpetrator of this offence,
same is not proved beyond reasonable
doubt from the statement of victim PW-1
Smt. Neeraj Devi herself and also from
the statement of PW-3 Chandra Bhan
and PW-2 Smt. Subhawati Devi.

23. Learned counsel for the appellant
also submitted that the plea of alibi was
also not considered by the trial court; while
this defence was also taken by the
appellant/convict in his statement under
section 313 Cr.P.C and also adduced the
defence witness who have deposed that the
appellant had been residing in Delhi and
was not present at the place of occurrence.
The appellant in his statement under
section 313 Cr.P.C., says that he had been
residing in Delhi since 2013 and due to
enmity he had been falsely implicated.

DW-1 Ram Kishan who is the
defence witness and also the brother of
PW-3 Chandra Bhan who is the father of
victim in his statement says that on the date
of occurrence Smt. Neeraj Devi was
sleeping in her room. They are four
brothers, Chandra Bhan is also his second
brother. His house is adjoining to the house
of Chandra Bhan who is the father of Smt.
Neeraj Devi. He awoke on hearing the
screaming due to throwing acid on Smt.
Neeraj Devi. Narendra Prasad had been
residing in Delhi. No one saw throwing
acid on Smt. Neeraj Devi and also
hurling
abuses
and
criminally
intimidating her.

DW-2
Ram
Sewak
in
his
statement says that he is the younger
brother of Narendra prasad and on the date
of occurrence Narendra Prasad was in
Delhi but at the behest of the police they
called Narendra Prasad from Delhi and on
account of this case Narendra Prasad
surrendered before the court. When the
police came to his house in search of
Narendra Prasad, at that time Narendra
Prasad had been in Delhi.

24. The plea of alibi means presence
at elsewhere. It is based on the physical
impossibility of participation in the crime
by the accused.

Here, it is also noteworthy that
the plea of alibi is the plea of defence.
Burden of proving the same shifts upon
the accused; if the prosecution succeeds
in proving the case beyond reasonable
doubt.

The Hon'ble Apex Court held in
Jayanti Bhai Bhanyankar Bhai Vs. State
of Gujrat AIR 2002 SC 3569 once the
prosecution succeeds in discharging its
burden, it is incumbent upon the accused
taking plea of alibi to prove it with
certainty so as to exclude the possibility of
presence at the place and time of
occurrence.

25. In the present case, since the
prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, even if
the plea of alibi which is taken by the
7 All. Mohit Vs. State of U.P.
87
accused, the burden of proving the same
can not be shifted upon the accused.

26. In view of re-appreciation of the
evidence in this appeal the finding given by
the trial court holding guilty to the
appellant is perverse and bears infirmity.

27. Accordingly, this appeal deserved
to be allowed.

28. The appeal is allowed and the
judgment and order dated 30.3.2019 passed
by IV Additional Sessions Judge(Essential
Commodities Act) Deoria in Sessions Trial
No. 104 of 2015 (State Vs. Narendra
Prasad) arising out of Case Crime No. 1426
of 2014 under sections 326-A,504 and 506
of IPC, P.S. Gauri Bazar, District Deoria is
set-aside. The appellant is in jail. He be
released forthwith, if he is not wanted in
some other case provided the bail bonds are
furnished on his behalf before the trial
court in compliance of section 437-A of
Cr.P.C., to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.

29.

Let
the
copy
of
the
judgment/order be certified to the court
concerned for necessary information and
follow up action.
----------
(2021)07ILR A87
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7466 of 2017

Mohit ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, Sri Mahendra
Ram Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
matter-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) & Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 377 & POCSO
Act,
2012-Section
5/6-challenge
to-
conviction-statement
of
PW-3
is
not
corroborated
with
medical
evidencetestimony of PW-1 and PW-2 is based on
hearsay evidence-victim a four year child
could
not
give
the
answer
during
interrogation except telling his nametestimony of victim PW-3 appears to be
tutored-accused/appellant gets benefit of
doubt.(Para 1 to 19)

The appeal is allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Subhakar Narayanji Laddha Vs St. of Mah.
(2006) 12 SCC pg.545

2. Ratan Singh Dilkhush Bhai Nayak Vs St. of
Guj.(2004) 1 SCC 64

3. Suresh Chandra Jana Vs St. of W.B. (2017) 6
Supreme at Page 35

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.)

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has
been preferred on behalf of the appellantconvict Mohit against the judgment dated
09.11.2017 passed by the Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Court
No.
8,
Muzaffarnagar in Special Sessions Trial
No. 123/9 of 2017 (State Vs. Mohit) arising
out of Case Crime No. 238 of 2017 under
Sections 377 I.P.C. And 5/6 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,