# State of U.P v. Firoj

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 486
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-21
- **Case number:** THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN. J. Government Appeal No. 411 of 2019
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-firoj-47842
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 342 & 376 - Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Sections 3 & 4 - Government Appeal,
against the order of acquittal - First
Information Report, under Sections 342 &
376 I.P.C. - Sections 3 & 4 POCSO Act -
PW -2 victim, in her cross examination,
stated that she has given her statement
under the pressure of her uncle Bhole,
who is younger brother of her father, as
she had apprehension if she did not give
that statement she would be subjected to
harassment - Her uncle had also exerted
pressure upon her father also - P.W.4Dr.Isha
Soni,
deposed
in
her
cross
examination that victim on one hand was
saying that rape was committed upon her
but
on
the
other
hand
she
was
contradicting herself by saying that no
rape was committed upon her - victim's
Hymen
was
also
found
intact
-
accused/respondent
stated
in
his
statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that prior to
alleged incident dispute with regard to
payment was existing and thus he has
been falsely implicated in this case - doubt
is created regarding the authenticity of
the
prosecution
case
against
the
accused/respondent - no worthy evidence
on record to prove the charges against the
accused - learned trial Court rightly
appreciated the facts and circumstances
of the case, no illegality or material
irregularity in the impugned judgment and
order and the same is sustainable in eyes
of law as it does not suffers from
perversity. (Para 36, 37, 38, 39 )
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Firoj
487
Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
witness of fact, has not supported his
evidence,
declared
hostile,
therefore,
alleged recovery of articles from the
Almirah of the accused is also not proved.

45. In the light of foregoing
discussion, we are of the opinion that
learned trial Court has held and recorded
the findings on considering each and every
aspect of the case, both factual, as well as,
legal. In this case, there is no worthy
evidence which may connect the accused
with the commission of crime except the
testimony of CW-1 Ajab Sigh, I.O., thus,
we find that the impugned judgment and
order dated 11.11.2020, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court, Bareilly, in connection with
Session trial No. 275 of 2017, is not
erroneous or perverse and we also find that
the same is sustainable in the eyes of law.

46. Accordingly, the judgment and
order dated 11.11.2020, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court, Bareilly, in Session trial No.
275 of 2017, State vs. Nanhe Lal and
another, arising out of Case Crime No. 89
of 2017, under Sections-302, 376, 394 and
411
I.P.C.,
Police
Station-Bhamora,
District-Bareilly is affirmed and upheld.

47. In the result the instant appeal is
dismissed.

48. Registry to return the record to the
Court below along with this order.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 486
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN. J.

Government Appeal No. 411 of 2019

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Firoj ...Accused-Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent:

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 342 & 376 - Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Sections 3 & 4 - Government Appeal,
against the order of acquittal - First
Information Report, under Sections 342 &
376 I.P.C. - Sections 3 & 4 POCSO Act -
PW -2 victim, in her cross examination,
stated that she has given her statement
under the pressure of her uncle Bhole,
who is younger brother of her father, as
she had apprehension if she did not give
that statement she would be subjected to
harassment - Her uncle had also exerted
pressure upon her father also - P.W.4Dr.Isha
Soni,
deposed
in
her
cross
examination that victim on one hand was
saying that rape was committed upon her
but
on
the
other
hand
she
was
contradicting herself by saying that no
rape was committed upon her - victim's
Hymen
was
also
found
intact
-
accused/respondent
stated
in
his
statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that prior to
alleged incident dispute with regard to
payment was existing and thus he has
been falsely implicated in this case - doubt
is created regarding the authenticity of
the
prosecution
case
against
the
accused/respondent - no worthy evidence
on record to prove the charges against the
accused - learned trial Court rightly
appreciated the facts and circumstances
of the case, no illegality or material
irregularity in the impugned judgment and
order and the same is sustainable in eyes
of law as it does not suffers from
perversity. (Para 36, 37, 38, 39 )
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Firoj
487
Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian, J.)

1. By means of this Criminal Misc.
Leave Application, on behalf of the State,
leave for filing Government Appeal,
against the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal of accused/respondent Firoz,
dated 06.05.2019, passed by the Special
Court
(POCSO
Act,
2012)/
VIIIth
Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, arising
out of Criminal Case No. 498 of 2016,
State vs. Firoz, is being sought.

2. Heard Shri Om Prakash Mishra,
Learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. In brief, the prosecution story is
that informant, Rajendra, informed that 3-4
days earlier his wife had gone to Sisauli.
His three children, were present in his
house;
on
12.10.2016,
her
daughter
Sangeeta, aged about 17 years, at about 10
p.m. had gone to drink water at the tap
installed out side his house; all of a sudden
accused/ respondent, having knife in his
hand, came behind her and trapped her
mouth and brought her in vacant room of
his house, where he committed rape upon
her;
she
informed
the
informant
telephonically; when he come back, she
narrated the entire story to him, whereafter
he lodged an First Information Report,
registered as Case Crime No. 267 of 2016,
under Sections-342, 376 I.P.C. and Section
3⁄4 of Protection of Children From Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, at Police StationRohta, District-Meerut.

4. Upon entrustment, the investigating
officer
took
over
charge
of
the
investigation and recorded the statements
of the informant, accused, and of victim
under Section 161; statement of victim was
also got recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C.; he also prepared site plan of the
alleged
place
of
occurrence;
during
investigation, the victim was put to medical
examination, not only to ascertain her age
but also to ascertain any mark of injury on
her person and status of alleged rape.

5. Upon collecting the incriminating
evidence against the accused/respondent,
for offences under Sections 342, 376 I.P.C.
and Section 3⁄4 of Protection of Children
From
Sexual
Offences
Act,
2012,
Investigating Officer forwarded the charge
sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. to the
Court concerned. Upon receiving the
charge sheet and other material, learned
Court below in exercise of powers
enshrined under Section 190 (2) Cr.P.C.,
took cognizance of the aforestated offences
against
the
accused/respondent
and
accordingly summoned him.

6. Learned trial Court vide order
dated 15.01.2018 charged the accused and
the same were explained and read over to
him; he denied the charges and claimed
trial.

7. Prosecution to prove it's case,
examined
informant-P.W.-1
Rajendra,
P.W.-2
victim-Sangeeta,
P.W.3-Smt.
Nirmala w/o Rajendra, P.W.-4-Dr. Isha
Soni, P.W.-5 Dr. Sangeeta, P.W.6-Head
Constable Police-Deepa Sharma, P.W.-7
Bhole,
victim's
uncle
and
P.W.8-
investigating
officer,
Sub
InspectorRajendra Singh.

8. Statements under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. of accused/respondent was also
recorded. He in his statement said that the
evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-4, was false and
statement of P.W.-3 victim was given
under the pressure of her uncle Bhole and
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the victim told about the occurrence to
Doctor was also under the pressure of her
uncle. He has also said that he has been
falsely implicated in this case upon
pressure exerted by Bhole because prior to
the present case a dispute regarding
transaction of money was existing between
him and Bhole and due to pre-existing
enmity he has been falsely implicated in
this case by Rajendra, brother of Bhole. He
claims that he is innocent and he denied his
complicity in the crime; he declined to
adduce evidence in his defence.

9. Upon hearing the submissions on
behalf of the parties, and scanning the
records, learned trial Court found that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges
under Section 342, 376 and 3⁄4 of Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
thus, trial Court did not find the accused
guilty under the aforesaid sections and
consequently, acquitted him.

10. On behalf of the State, leave to
file Government Appeal, under Section 308
(3) Cr.P.C. is being sought on the ground
that the learned trial Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and merely on the strength of
conjectures and surmises and also on basis
of minor contradictions Court has recorded
finding of acquittal of the accused,
whereas, there is clinching evidence
specifically of P.W.-7 Bhole, on record but
the same has not been relied upon.

11. Learned Court below has not
made proper appraisal of evidence on
record and by acquitting the accused from
charges under aforementioned sections,
learned trial Court has grossly erred in law
and hence the impugned judgment and
order is not sustainable and the same
deserves to be set aside by this Court and
accordingly, the leave to file Government
Appeal against the impugned judgment and
order be granted.

12. Heard learned A.G.A. at length
and perused the record.

13. At the time of alleged commission
of occurrence of incident, P.W.-1 Rajendra,
P.W.-7-Bhole and P.W.-3 Smt. Nirmala,
were not present and in the First
Information Report it is averred that at the
time of instant occurrence, wife of the
informant Rajendra, was staying at Sisauli,
at the house of her sister. It is also not
alleged in the First Information Report that
the informant himself was present at his
house; he has simply averred in the
application Exhibit-Ka-1, that at the time of
the alleged occurrence his three sons and
two daughters, were present at his house. It
is also alleged in the First Information
Report that his daughter/ victim had
apprised
him
about
the
incident
telephonically, thus, the First Information
Report, Exhibit-Ka-1, is based on the
information
allegedly,
given
by
his
daughter upon returning to his home. First
Information Report, as well as, the
statements of the P.W.-1- Rajendra, P.W.-3
Nirmala and P.W.-7 Bhole, who happens to
be uncle of the victim are indirect evidence
under the provisions of the Indian Evidence
Act, need to be corroborated from the
direct evidence. Direct evidence is the best
evidence and obviously such evidence can
form the basis of conviction of the accused,
because, under law number of witnesses to
prove the charge is not essential, therefore,
at the outset, it is necessary to consider the
deposition of victim-P.W.-2.

14.

P.W.-2
victim,
during
investigation,
has
got
recorded
her
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Firoj
489
Rima Chauhan, Sub Inspector and under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the
Magistrate concerned.

15. P.W.-5, Dr. Sangeeta Gupta, is
said to have conducted the medical
examination, prepared the medical report of
victim and also recorded the statement of
the victim during her medical examination.
In the statement she has stated that on
13.10.2016 she was posted as Senior
Consultant in the District Women Hospital
and on that date victim was brought by the
lady constable for her medical examination
in connection with the present case; the
victim had told her that she is 17 years old
and she has done medical examination of
the victim with the consent of the victim as
well as his uncle Bhole.

16. P.W.-5, Dr. Sangeeta Gupta,
further states that at the time of medical
examination she had recorded the statement
of the victim to the effect that the victim
had told her that on 12.10.2016, at around
10 to 10:30 p.m. Firoz had not committed
the incident with her; therefore no internal
or external mark of injury was found on her
person; she had changed her clothes; there
was cut mark on her middle finger.

17. P.W.-5-Dr. Sangeeta Gupta, in her
cross examination has admitted that the
victim in her statement has not told her that
Firoz has committed rape upon her.

18. It is recorded by P.W.-5-Dr.
Sangeeta Gupta, in the statement of the
victim that she at 10 p.m. went to drink
water from the tap installed out side of her
house; all of sudden, Firoz came from
behind and trapped her mouth and brought
her in the vacant room of his house and
attempted to rape her; accused from his one
hand was searching something in the
Almirah; she got the opportunity and
rescued herself and rushed back to her
house.

19. In the aforesaid statement of the
victim, said to have been recorded by P.W.-
5, Dr. Sangeeta Gupta, it is not noted that at
the time of alleged incident the accused
was brandishing knife in his hand. P.W.-5
Dr. Sangeeta Gupta, has also admitted in
her cross examination that with regard to
alleged rape, victim did not tell her that
accused had committed rape upon her.

20. P.W.-5, Dr. Sangeeta Gupta has
also deposed that no sign of force being
applied was found at the time of medical
examination of the victim, however, she
has opined that in such a scenario the
sexual violence cannot be ruled out.

21. P.W.-2, victim, has stated in her
examination in chief before the learned trial
Court that on 12.10.2006, at around 1010:30 p.m. when she went to drink water at
the water tap installed outside of her house,
Firoz appeared there; trapped her mouth
and forcefully brought her to his house and
committed rape upon her. She also admits
that she had narrated the entire incident to
her parents, who went to the house of the
accused/respondent but he fled from there.
She admits that she had also told to Daroga
Ji about the incident and also got her
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
recorded. As such P.W.-2, victim, has
supported the averments in the First
Information Report and also the testimony
of P.W.-1 Rajendra, P.W.-3 Smt. Nirmala
and P.W.4 and P.W.-7 Bhole. However, in
the same breath P.W.-2 victim, in her cross
examination, has stated that she has given
her statement under the pressure of her
uncle Bhole, who is younger brother of her
father; Her uncle had also exerted pressure,
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not only upon her, but also on her father.
The aforestated statement has been given
by her under fear of her uncle; She had also
given her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. under the pressure of her uncle
Bhole as she had apprehension if she did
not give that statement she would be
subjected to harassment.

22. It is evident from her deposition,
that in her cross examination, she has not
supported the prosecution case. In her
examination in chief she has also admitted
that the previous statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. was also given under duress.

23. Since statement of P.W.-2 victim
has been recorded on oath before the
learned trial Court therefore, it has to be
treated as voluntarily one.

24. P.W.-2, victim, in her cross
examination has also stated that Firoz has
not committed rape upon her; she also
contradicts her statements given under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. by saying that accused
respondent had not trapped her mouth, nor
he took her to the room in his house; at the
time of alleged incident she was 19 years of
age and on the date of examination she was
aged about 21 years.

25. P.W.-2, victim, has not stated in
her
examination
in
chief
that
accused/respondent had made an attempt to
rape her, nor in this respect she has stated
in her cross examination therefore, the
evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Sangeeta Gupta,
that the victim had told her that Firoz had
made an attempt to rape victim is not
corroborated by herself, nor in the First
Information Report there is averment that
Firoz made an attempt to rape the victim.

26. P.W.-2 victim, has also deposed
in her cross examination that statement to
Daroga Ji was also given by her, under the
duress of her uncle Bhole.

27. The statement of witness, under
law is required to be read as a whole.
Incident is said to have occurred with the
victim by accused; first information report
was not lodged by her at the police station,
nor, informant- P.W.-1, Rajendra, P.W.-3
Nirmala and P.W.-7 Bhole, were present at
the time of incident, whereas, P.W.-7,
Bhole in his examination in chief has stated
that the victim is her niece and on
12.10.2016, at around 10 p.m. he was
present at his house; he heard scream of her
niece, who lives nearby and on hearing her
shout, he came out of his house and saw
her niece was weeping; on interrogation,
she had narrated the entire incident to him.

28. P.W.-2 victim, has not stated in
her deposition that her uncle Bhole had
come on the scene of occurrence and she
had narrated the incident to him. Thus,
statement
of
P.W.-7
Bhole,
in
this
connection is not corroborated by P.W.-2
victim.

29. P.W.-1, informant, P.W.-3 Smt.
Nirmala, P.W.-7 Bhole, have stated in their
respective testimony that at the time of
incident accused/respondent Firoz was
having knife, but victim has not stated in
her
statement
that
accused/respondent
Firoz, at the time of alleged incident was
wielding knife in his hand, thus, the
statements of P.W.-1 Rajendra, P.W.-3
Nirmala and P.W.-7, Bhole, do not find
support from the deposition of P.W.-2,
victim, and being uncorroborated it in not
worthy of reliance.
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Firoj
491

30. Since, P.W.-2 victim has
supported the prosecution case in her
examination in chief but has also candidly
stated that her previous statements under
Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. and her
examination in chief, were the result of
pressure exerted by her uncle Bhole upon
her.

31. P.W.-2 victim, admitted in her
deposition that she is literate and she also
discloses in her statement that at the time of
alleged incident she was aged about 19
years. In the First Information Report the
age of the victim is mentioned 17 years.
P.W.-1 Rajendra, P.W.-3 Nirmala and
P.W.-7 Bhole, has not mentioned the age of
the victim in their statements. There is no
documentary evidence on the record about
the age of the victim. The evidence of
P.W.-2 victim with regard to her age, was
19 years, at the time of alleged incident.
Her deposition, has not been challenged,
therefore, it appears that her statement with
regard to her age, at the time of alleged
incident is admitted to the prosecution.

32. P.W.-4 Dr. Isha Soni, had also
carried out the medical examination of the
victim in connection with the instant case
on 15.10.2016, during her posting at PHC
Mahila Hospital, Meerut. She states in her
examination in chief that she had found
victim's hymen intact. She has also proved
medical report as Exhibit-Ka-3. It is also
admitted to P.W.-4 Dr. Isha Soni that at the
time of medical examination of the victim,
she well known that she was doing medical
examination of the victim second time.

33. In medical jurisprudence it is
generally presumed that in case of rape of a
young woman her hymen is torned. In the
instant case P.W.-2 victim has stated that
no rape was committed upon her. She
refuses that physical violence had been
caused to her by the accused. No mark of
injury or violence was noted by the Doctors
during her medical examination.

34. P.W.4-Dr.Isha Soni, has also
deposed in her cross examination that
victim was blowing hot and cold; on one
hand she was saying that rape was
committed upon her but on the other hand
she was contradicting herself by saying that
no
rape
was
committed
upon
her.
Therefore, self contradictory statement of
victim was recorded to P.W.-4 Dr. Isha
Soni, it appears that the victim was under
pressure of her uncle Bhole; victim's
Hymen was also found intact. It appears
from above discussion that no rape was
committed by the accused/respondent upon
the victim P.W.-2.

35. Finding returned by the trial Court
in the impugned judgment and order dated
06.05.2019, in para 32, is extracted below;

"प्रस्तुत प्रकरर् में पी०डब्लू० 1 एविं
पी०डब्लू० 3 तथा पी०डब्लू7 भोले के द्वारा घटिा की
जािकारी पीक्षड़ता से होिा कहते हुए यह कहा गया है की
घटिा क्षदिािंक 12.10.16 की राक्षि करीब 10 बजे की है।
इसका उल्लेख इस स्तर पर इसक्षलये क्षकया जा रहा है की
उपरोक्त चारोिं सािी पी०डब्लू० 1 लगायत 3 एविं
पी०डब्लू० 7 में से कोई भी सािी घटिा का चश्मदीद
सािी िहीिं है और उिके द्वारा स्वयिं को घटिा की
जािकारी पीक्षड़ता के माध्यम से होिे की बात कही गयी
है। जहािं तक पीक्षड़ता का प्रश्न है तो पीक्षड़ता िे अपिी क्षजरह
क्षदिािंक 10.07.18 पृष्ठ सिं० 2 एविं 3 पर स्पष्ट रूप से घटिा
से इन्कार करते हुए यह कहा गया है की क्षफरोज िे मेरे
साथ कोई गलत काम ( बलात्कार ) िहीिं क्षकया । धारा 164
एविं 161 द ० प्र०सिं० तथा न्यायालय में क्षदए गये बयािोिं के
बारे में यह कहा गया है की उक्त बयाि अपिे चाचा भोले
के दबाव में क्षदया गया था। मुलक्षजम क्षफरोज िे मेरे साथ
कोई गलत काम िहीिं क्षकया । यह कहिा गलत है की
मुलक्षजम क्षफरोज मेरा मुूँह दबाकर अपिे कमरे मे ले गया
हो। क्षफरोज िे कपडे उतारे और ि मुूँह में कपडा ठूसा ।
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
क्षजस समय यह मुक़दमा क्षलखाया गया था उस वक्त मेरी
उम्र 19 वषण थी अब 21 वषण है। धारा 164 द ० प्र०सिं० का
पूरा बयाि पढ़िे के बाद कहा गया है की इसमें जो बाते
क्षलखी हैं वे सब गलत है। मेरा पुक्षलस वाले दरोगा सक्षहत
थािे पर जो बयाि हुआ था वह भी मैिे चाचा भोले के
दबाव में क्षदया था। सािी सिं० 4 ड ० ईसा सोिी के द्वारा भी
मेक्षडकल परीिर् क्षकया गया है और मेक्षडकल परीिर्
करिे के उपरान्त यह कहा गया है की पीक्षड़ता का हाईमि
इन्टैक्ट था और उक्त क्षद्वतीय मेक्षडकल परीिर् क्षदिािंक
15.10.16 को हुआ है और प्रथम मेक्षडकल परीिर् ड ०
सिंगीता गुप्ता के द्वारा क्षदिािंक 13.10.16 को क्षकया गया था
और उिके द्वारा भी यह कहा गया है की शरीर पर कोई
बाहरी या अिंदरूिी चोट िहीिं थी। वह कपडे बदल चुकी
थी , िहा चुकी थी। ड क्टरी मुआयिा के खािा सिं० 15 अ
में पीक्षड़ता के बताये हुए कथि क्षलखे है। बलात्कार होिा
िहीिं बताया था। सािी सिं० 4 िे भी कहा है की पीक्षड़ता बार
बार कह रही थी की उसके साथ बलात्कार हुआ है क्षफर
कह रही थी की िहीिं हुआ। कहिे का तात्पयण है की क्षदिािंक
12.10.16 को राक्षि 10 बजे घटिा घक्षटत हुई है और
क्षदिािंक 13.10.16 को पीक्षड़ता का क्षचक्षकत्सीय परीिर्
03.00 बजे क्षदि में हुआ है। उस समय उसके शरीर पर
कोई बाह्य या अिंदरूिी चोट िहीिं पायी गयी थी। क्षदिािंक
15.10.16 को दोबारा मेक्षडकल परीिर् हुआ है, उसमें भी
हाईमि इन्टैक्ट था। सामान्यतः यक्षद क्षकसी के साथ
शारीररक सिंसगण काररत क्षकया जाता है तो हाईमि के
फटिे की सिाव्यता अत्यक्षधक रहती है। प्रस्तुत प्रकरर्
में यक्षद अक्षभयुक्त क्षफरोज द्वारा जबरदस्ती पीक्षड़ता के साथ
दुष्कमण क्षकया गया होता तो हाईमि इन्टैक्ट िहीिं होता वरि्
फटा हुआ पाया जाता। साथ ही पीक्षड़ता स्वयिं िे भी
न्यायालय में क्षकये गये बयाि में यह कहा है की मुलक्षजम
क्षफरोज िे घटिा की क्षतक्षथ व समय पर उसके साथ क्षकसी
प्रकार कोई गलत काम िहीिं क्षकया ि ही मुिंह में कपडा
ठूूँसा। अन्य सािीगर् के द्वारा भी यह कहा गया है की
उन्ें घटिा के बारे में पीक्षड़ता िे बताया था। यक्षद पीक्षड़ता
स्वयिं न्यायालय में घटिा काररत होिे से इिंकार कर रही है
तो क्षकस प्रकार उि लोगोिं को घटिा की जािकारी और
सत्यता का ज्ञाि हुआ, यह सन्देहास्प्रद प्रतीत होता है।"

36. The accused/respondent has stated
in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
that prior to alleged incident dispute with
regard to payment was existing and thus he
has been falsely implicated in this case.

37. Since victim, P.W.-2 has herself
admitted that pressure was exerted by her
uncle, to give evidence of alleged rape
against the accused/respondent, it lends
credence to the above referred statement of
the accused.

38. In the backdrop of above analysis
of evidence on record, doubt is created
regarding
the
authenticity
of
the
prosecution
case
against
the
accused/respondent. We find no worthy
evidence on record to prove the charges
against the accused.

39. From the above discussion, it is
concluded that the learned trial Court has
rightly
appreciated
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, as well as the
evidence on record hence we do not find
any illegality or material irregularity in the
impugned judgment and order and the same
is sustainable in eyes of law as it does not
suffers from perversity.

40. Thus, leave to appeal is refused
and in consequence the appeal stands
rejected.

41. Registry to return the record to the
Court below along with this order.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 492
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN. J.

Government Appeal No. 434 of 2019

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Satyapal & Ors. ...Accused-Respondents