# Surendra Yadav v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 1310
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2067 of 2006
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-50533
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 363, 366 & 376 - Punishment for
rape - Statement of PW-2 shows that
victim
went
away
with
appellant,
informed by PW-2 on same day in
evening, no information given to police -
Both
PW-1
and
PW-2
in
their
StatementsSt.d age of victim 14 years, as
per high school mark-sheet, her age was
17
years
and
as
per
radiological
examination, she was major - Admitted
fact that prosecutrix went away with her
own free will as per her own Statement-
She remained with appellant for period of
40
days
without
raising
any
alarm,
consenting party - Statement of unknown
person not recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by I.O
who used to keep watch on victim, not
made part of investigation - Merely on
sole testimony of prosecutrix without
corroborative
material
in
which
improvement made, accused can't be
guilty of offence - Photocopy of high
school marksheet produced before trial
court,
not
proved
by
prosecution
-
Certificate of CMO according to which
prosecutrix is major proved by PW-4 -
Testimony
of
PW-1
and
PW-2
are
contradictory regarding her age - Thus,
impugned order set aside, acquitted. (Para
21 to 25, 28)

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statement under Section 161 and 164 of
Cr.P.C., of the prosecutrix and the other
evidences on record, the order dated
04.10.2019 has been passed, whereby, the
appellant has been summoned.

29. The first plea is taken by the appellant,
regarding the inconsistency in the statements of
the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 of
Cr.P.C. This Court finds that there might be
certain contradiction in the statement of the
victim/prosecutrix, but, whether the same can
be examined at this stage, is the first and
foremost question. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
catena of judgements has held that there can be
discrepancies in the statements of an accused
under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. but that
cannot be examined/appreciated except apart
the trial proceedings as the same would amount
to mini trial.

30. Further, this Court is of considered
opinion that the statement of the prosecutrix
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is having at par
evidenciary value as the injured witness in a
criminal case. Therefore, the first contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant is against
the settled proposition of law and thus, have no
force.

31. Considering the second set of
argument of learned counsel for the appellant
and the reply of the counsel for the other side
including the State, that the present appellant
was working as a Lecturer in a College on 15th
and 16th of May, 2017, in between 7:00 A.M.
to 12:30 P.M., the issue with respect to his nonpresence, while saying that he was present at
the College, namely, Sri Deshraj Narang
Dayanand Inter College, Govind Nagar,
Walterganj, District Basti, is an issue of 'plea of
alibi' which has already been decided by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of Judgments,
wherein, it has been held that the 'plea of alibi'
can be examined in the trial proceedings by the
trial Court, as the same requires appreciation of
evidences and factual contradictions. In the
present matter, it has been said that there is
evidence that the appellant was in the College at
Basti at the time of the alleged incident, but the
question that whether the same can be
appreciated at this stage, is answered in
negative, as per the settled law.

32. So far as the contention of learned
counsel for the appellant is with respect to the
question that the statement of the prosecutrix of
a rape case under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not
sufficient to lead the conviction of an accused is
concerned, the same has also been answered in
plethora of judgements of the Apex Court,
wherein, it has been held that only statement of
prosecutrix under Section 164, is sufficient to
lead the conviction.

33. In view of the above submissions and
discussions it is apparent that there is no merit
in the instant appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is
hereby dismissed.

34. It is further made clear that any
observation made hereinabove would not affect
the merit of the trial.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1310
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2067 of 2006

Surendra Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Balak Ram Verma, Atul Verma, Hari Krishna
Verma, Sanjeet Kumar Patel
8 All. Surendra Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
1311
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 363, 366 & 376 - Punishment for
rape - Statement of PW-2 shows that
victim
went
away
with
appellant,
informed by PW-2 on same day in
evening, no information given to police -
Both
PW-1
and
PW-2
in
their
StatementsSt.d age of victim 14 years, as
per high school mark-sheet, her age was
17
years
and
as
per
radiological
examination, she was major - Admitted
fact that prosecutrix went away with her
own free will as per her own Statement-
She remained with appellant for period of
40
days
without
raising
any
alarm,
consenting party - Statement of unknown
person not recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by I.O
who used to keep watch on victim, not
made part of investigation - Merely on
sole testimony of prosecutrix without
corroborative
material
in
which
improvement made, accused can't be
guilty of offence - Photocopy of high
school marksheet produced before trial
court,
not
proved
by
prosecution
-
Certificate of CMO according to which
prosecutrix is major proved by PW-4 -
Testimony
of
PW-1
and
PW-2
are
contradictory regarding her age - Thus,
impugned order set aside, acquitted. (Para
21 to 25, 28)

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Ali Vs St. of U.P. reported in (2015) 7
SCC 272

2. Kuldeep K. Mahato Vs St. of Bihar reported in
(1998) 6 SCC 420

3. Narendra Kumar Vs St. (NCT of Delhi),
(2012)7 SCC 171

4. Jai Krishna Mandal Vs St. of Jharkhand,
(2010)14 SCC 534

5. Raju Vs St. of M.P, (2008) 15 SCC 133
6. Tameezuddin Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), (2009)15
SCC 566
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. On the last date, status of the
appellant was summoned vide order dated
14.12.2022.

Shri Atul Kumar Verma, learned
Advocate submits that he has already filed
his vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant
and confirms that the appellant is alive and
therefore, no further report is required.

2. Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned
counsel for the appellant and Shri Anant
Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present appeal under Section 374
(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 19.09.2006 passed
by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ambedkar nagar, in case crime No.
30/2004, S.T. No. 56/2005, under Sections
363/366/376 IPC, P.S. Hanswar, District
Ambedkar Nagar "State of U.P. Vs. Surendra
Yadav and others", whereby the appellant has
been convicted under Section 363/366/376
IPC I.P.C. and under Section 366 he has been
sentenced to undergo for a period of 4 years
rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs. 2000/-, under Section 366 IPC, he has
been sentenced to undergo for a period of 6
years rigorous imprisonment along with a
fine of Rs. 2000/- and under Section 376 IPC,
he has been sentenced to undergo for a period
of 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with
a fine of Rs. 2000/-, with default provisions
in each of the offences. All the punishment to
run concurrently.

4. As per the written report,
complainant's daughter Pratima Srivastava
1312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aged about 14 years has been enticed away
by one Surendra in collusion of his parents
on 28.05.2004 at about 12 hours in the
day. On that day, the complainant and his
wife were not present at home, only
minor
children
were
present.
The
prosecutrix on the pretext of going to the
house of maternal uncle, went away with
the accused persons. The complainant
searched his daughter a lot, however,
when she was not found, he lodged an
F.I.R.
on
05.06.2004
which
was
registered as case crime No. 30/2004,
under Sections 363/366/376 IPC at P.S.
Hanswar,
District
Ambedkar
Nagar
against the accused Surendra, his mother
and father. In the F.I.R. he has alleged
that when he has inquired at the house of
the accused Surendra with his parents,
then they started indulging into maarpeet.

5. The investigation was started by
Sub
Inspector
Rameshchandra.
The
prosecutrix was recovered on 07.07.2004.
The investigating officer after recording
statement of the prosecution witnesses and
preparing site plan has filed charge sheet
against the accused persons. Against all the
accused persons, charges were framed
under Section 363/366 IPC and against
Surender charges were framed under
Section 376 IPC.

6. Prosecution to prove its case has
produced following seven witnesses;-

(i) PW-1 Harikrishan Shrivastava
(father of the victim)

(ii) PW-2 Jaykishun Lal (brother
of PW-1)

(iii) PW-3 Victim

(iv) PW-4 Dr. Meera Verma

(v) PW-5 Head Constable Ashok
Kumar (subscriber of the F.I.R.)

(vi) S.I. R.V. Gautam

(vii)
Head
Constable
Ashok
Kumar

7. Statements of the accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded where
their case was of denial and stated that due
to
enmity,
they
have
been
falsely
implicated.

8. PW-1 Harikrishan Lal Srivastava is
the father of the victim. He has stated that
on 28.05.2004, he and his wife were not
home, they went to see his father-in-law
two days ago. On 28.05.2004 at about 2:30
PM when they returned, minor children
Ritesh Kumar and Brijesh Kumar who
were about 9 years and ten years old, told
that victim has gone with Surendra
somewhere. When he went to the house of
Surendra, then his mother shown sheer
ignorance
regarding
the
incident.
Thereafter his brother Jai Krishan Lal told
him that he saw victim with Surendra
around 1:00 PM. He kept on searching
victim till evening and also inquired in his
relations for one or two days and when he
failed in searching his daughter, finally on
05.06.2004, he informed the police station
and F.I.R. was lodged which has been
exhibited as Ex. Ka-1 and has been proved
by PW-1.

9. PW-1 further stated that the victim
was recovered after 10-12 days in Baskhari
while getting down from a bus. He has also
stated that the victim was enticed away by
Surendra and his parents.

10. PW-2 Jaykishun Lal is the real
younger brother of PW-1. He has stated
8 All. Surendra Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
1313
that the victim is his niece. On 28.05.2004
at about 12 PM, he and his wife Vijay
Laxmi saw the victim with the appellant
Surendra. At that time her age was 14
years. He has not objected when he saw the
victim with Surendra as he was not in
talking terms with his brother PW-1. The
appellant used to come to his house in the
evening. When his brother came searching
the victim, he told him regarding this. Both
PW-1 and PW-2 searched the victim for 67 days and when she was not found, the
report was lodged.

11. PW-3 is the victim. In her
statement, she has stated that the appellant
is known to the victim prior to the incident.
He used to come in her house. On
28.05.2004,
she
asked
the
appellant
Surendra to bring her at her uncle's house
in Sultanpur, at that time her parents were
not at home. At around 12 'o clock, she
went away with Surendra, on the way his
father Shivdas, mother Indravati and aunt
Shyama Devi met and these people
accompanied her till Baskhari and there
these people had board her on the bus
which was going to Varanasi. In the bus
along with her, Surendra was also sitting.
After going at some distance, one person
having with face covered with gamcha was
also there. She stayed at Varanasi for 2-3
days along with the appellant. She stated
that when she objected while going to
Varanasi, she was scolded by another
person who was with Surendra and she was
also threatened to keep quite. Thereafter,
she was taken to Chennai from Varanasi. In
Chennai she was locked in a room and was
kept for a month in the room wherein
Surendra used to rape her. She objected.
After one month, the appellant Surendra
took her from Chennai to Varanasi and
from Varanasi to Baskhari by bus. The
appellant came down from the bus at the
block and told her that to get down on the
next crossing. While she was getting down
from the bus, police caught her, along with
the police, her father was also there.

12. PW-4 Dr. Meera Verma has
proved the medical report which was
exhibited as Ex. Ka-2. She in his statement
has stated that the victim was habitual of
sexual intercourse. She conducted the
external and internal examination of the
victim. In her external examination, it was
found that there was no injury in her
private part, neither on any part of the
body. The organs of the victim were fully
developed. In the internal examination, no
mark of injury was found. Two fingers
could have crossed in private part easily.
She quoted that she has not found any sign
to suggest that she was raped. She has also
proved certificate given by CMO where her
age was assessed as 18 years. All the
organs of the victim were fully developed
and she was major.

13. PW-5 is Head Constable Ashok
Kumar who is scribe of the F.I.R. as well as
GD nakal.

14. PW-6 is the investigating officer
who has proved fard recovery exhibited as
Ka-5 and the site plan exhibited as Ka-6.
He has also proved the charge sheet.

15. PW-7 Head Constable Ashok
Kumar as second witness has proved the
signatures of R.B. Gautam who has
prepared the naksha nazri (exhibit Ka-8) as
well as charge sheet (exhibit Ka-9).

16. Submission of learned counsel for
the appellant is that occurrence has taken
place on 28.05.2004 and the F.I.R. was
lodged after a delay of 6-7 days. He also
submits that PW-1 and PW-2 in their
statements have stated age of the victim to
1314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be 14 years, whereas, the victim was major as
per the radiological examination and as per
own admission of PW-3 victim, her age was
17 years. Thus, right from the beginning, from
this aspect, it can be presumed that the
complainant wanted to falsely implicate the
appellant.

17. It has been further submitted on
behalf of the appellant that the victim was
recovered on 07.07.2004 i.e. after 40 days of
the incident. Out of those 40 days, three days
she stayed with the accused at the Varanasi
Station, three days she stayed with him in the
train from Varanasi to Chennai and more than
30 days she stayed in Chennai. It is admitted
fact that the victim was traveling by a public
transport i.e. bus from Baskhari to Varanasi,
train from Varanasi to Chennai and she stayed
at Varanasi Station i.e. also a public place and
as per the statement of the victim shows that
there were plenty of persons, however, she
never tried to raise any alarm and she never
told anybody regarding her staying with the
appellant. It is further submitted that the
prosecutrix is a consenting party and the trial
court erred in convicting the appellant,
ignoring the relevant and material fact that she
never raised any alarm during her travel from
Baskhari to Varanasi and from Varanasi to
Chennai and stay at Varanasi for three days
and Chennai for approximately one month
with the appellant.

18. It is further submitted that though as
per school record, age of the victim is
seventeen and half years, however, only
photocopy of the high school marksheet has
been filed, which too has not been exhibited
and therefore, the trial court wrongly relied on
the same while convicting the appellant.

19. It has been further submitted by
learned counsel for the appellant that prior
to amendment by virtue of Act 13 of 2013
with effect from 03.02.2013, age of consent
for the purposes of Section 375 IPC was 16
years and admittedly in this case, the
prosecutrix is more than 16 years as per the
radiological examination where her age has
been found to be 18 years or as per the own
admission of the prosecution where she has
stated that she is 17 years old and therefore,
age could not have been a ground in this
case for conviction.

20. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
appeal submitting that age of the prosecurix
as per the her high school marksheet is less
than 18 years and there is no illegality in
the judgment of the trial court.

21. Perusal of the statement of PW-2
shows that the victim went away with the
appellant on 28.05.2004 and this fact was
informed by PW-2 who is real brother of
the victim on the same day in the evening,
still no information was given to the police
till 05.06.2004. Both PW-1 and PW-2 in
their statements before the Court have
stated age of the victim 14 years whereas as
per high school mark-sheet, her age was 17
years and as per radiological examination,
she was major. The argument of learned
counsel for the appellant on this aspect
carries weight that right from the inception,
the complainant wanted to falsely implicate
the appellant and by reducing the age, the
complainant just wanted to enhance the
gravity of the offence.

22. It is admitted fact that the
prosecutrix all along went away with the
appellant with her own accord and free will
as per her own statement, hence, no case
under Section 363/366 IPC is made out
against the appellant. Another admitted fact
that the prosecutrix remained with the
appellant for a period of 40 days without
raising any alarm which shows that she was
8 All. Surendra Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
1315
a consenting party. In the last part of the
statement of the victim under Section 161
Cr.P.C., this much has come that one boy
used to sit with the appellant Surendra in
gamcha/chunni who used to keep a watch
on the victim, however, he has not been
examined before the trial court.

23. The Court has further noted that the
prosecutrix on her own accord went away
with the appellant from her home in absence
of the complainant leaving away two minor
children. The fact that she stayed with the
appellant at Varanasi Station for three days,
three days in train from Varanasi to Chennai
and more than 30 days in Chennai in one
room, however, at no point of time any alarm
was raised by her. In the cross-examination
PW-3 victim has admitted that she went
along with the appellant at cycle to Trimhani
and from there to Baskhari and from
Baskhari to Varanasi by bus. While
traveling from Baskhari to Varanasi and
Varanasi to Chennai, as per the statements
of the prosecutrix, though several persons
were there, she has not told anybody
regarding her staying with the appellant. A
total six days while going to Chennai were
spent by the victim on public transport and
at the public place like Varanasi Station,
however, at no point of time, any alarm was
raised by her.

24. The Court has further noticed the
fact that as to why the statement of
unknown person has not been recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the I.O who
was all along with the victim while she was
going from Baskhari to Varanasi and
Varanasi to Chennai and in Chennai. In
fact, he has not been made part of the
investigation. It is clear from the statement
of the prosecutrix before the Court that she
has tried to make ample improvement in
her case.

25. Merely on the sole testimony of
the prosecutrix without any corroborative
material and on such kind of shaky and
inconsistent testimony of the prosecutrix in
which improvement has been made and the
fact that the prosecutrix was consenting
party, the accused can not be held guilty of
the offence. It will not be appropriate to
convict the appellant on such testimony of
the prosecutrix.

In the case of Mohd. Ali Vs. State
of U.P. Reported in (2015) 7 SCC 272, the
Supreme Court has held as under:-

'29. Be it noted, there can be no
iota of doubt that on the basis of the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is
unimpeachable and beyond reproach, a
conviction can be based.In the case at
hand, the learned trial Judge as well as the
High Court have persuaded themselves
away
with
this
principle
without
appreciating
the
acceptability
and
reliability of the testimony of the witness. In
fact, it would not be inappropriate to say
that whatever the analysis in the impugned
judgment, it would only indicate an
impropriety of approach. The prosecutrix
has deposed that she was taken from one
place to the other and remained at various
houses for almost two months. The only
explanation given by her is that she was
threatened by the accused persons. It is
not in her testimony that she was confined
to one place. In fact, it has been borne out
from the material on record that she had
travelled from place to place and she was
ravished a number of times. Under these
circumstances, the medical evidence gains
significance, for the examining doctor has
categorically deposed that there are no
injuries on the private parts. The delay in
FIR,
the
non-examination
of
the
witnesses, the testimony of the prosecutrix,
1316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the associated circumstances and the
medical evidence, leave a mark of doubt to
treat the testimony of the prosecutrix as so
natural and truthful to inspire confidence.
It can be stated with certitude that the
evidence of the prosecutrix is not of such
quality which can be placed reliance
upon.

(emphasised by me)

26. The Supreme Court in "Kuldeep
K. Mahato Vs. State of Bihar reported in
(1998) 6 SCC 420" in paragraph 11
(relevant part) has held as under:-

"The prosecutrix had sufficient
opportunity not only to run away from the
house at Ramgarh but she could have also
taken the help of the neighbours from the
said village. The medical evidence of Dr
Maya Shankar Thakur, PW 5 also indicates
that there were no injuries on the person of
the prosecutrix including her private parts.
Her entire conduct clearly shows that she
was a consenting party to the sexual
intercourse and if this be so, the conviction
of the appellant under Section 376 IPC
cannot be sustained. There is one more
additional factor which we must mention
that it is not the case of the prosecutrix that
she was put in physical restraint in the
house at Ramgarh, with the result that her
movements
were
restricted.
This
circumstance also goes to negative the case
of forcible intercourse with the prosecutrix
by the appellant.''

Supreme Court in (2012)7 SCC
171 Narendra Kumar versus State (NCT
of Delhi) held that where the evidence of
the prosecutrix is found suffering from
inconsistencies and infirmities with other
material, no reliance can be placed thereon.
The relevant para 22 is reproduced as under
:

"Where
evidence
of
the
prosecutrix is found suffering from serious
infirmities and inconsistencies with other
material, prosecutrix making deliberate
improvements on material point with a
view to rule out consent on her part and
there being no injury on her person even
though her version may be otherwise, no
reliance can be placed upon her evidence.
(Vide Suresh N. Bhusare v. State of
Maharashtra (1999) 1 SCC 220)"

In
(2010)14
SCC
534
Jai
Krishna
Mandal
versus
State
of
Jharkhand, Supreme Court reiterated that
the improbable statement of the prosecutrix
cannot be believed. Relevant portion of
para 4 is reproduced as under :

"4............The only evidence of
rape was the statement of the prosecutrix
herself and when this evidence was read in
its totality, the story projected by the
prosecutrix was so improbable that it could
not be believed."

In Raju versus State of M.P
(2008) 15 SCC 133, Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that no doubt, a false allegation
of
rape
can
cause
equal
distress,
humiliation and damage to the accused as
well and interest of the accused must also
be protected. Relevant portion of paras 10
and 11 are reproduced as under :

"10........... that ordinarily the
evidence of a prosecutrix should not be
suspected and should be believed, more so
as her statement has to be evaluated on par
with that of an injured witness and if the
evidence is reliable, no corroboration is
necessary.

"11.......It cannot be lost sight of
that rape causes the greatest distress and
8 All. Sahab Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1317
humiliation to the victim but at the same
time a false allegation of rape can cause
equal distress, humiliation and damage to
the accused as well. The accused must also
be protected against the possibility of false
implication..... there is no presumption or
any basis for assuming that the statement of
such a witness is always correct or without
any embellishment or exaggeration."

Similar view has been taken by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tameezuddin
versus State (NCT of Delhi (2009)15 SCC
566."

27. There are latches in the prosecution
case. First, the prosecutrix on her own accord
went away with the appellant in absence of
her parents leaving minor children. Secondly,
she traveled with the appellant to Chennai
through public transport and at no point of
time, she raised any alarm which shows that
she was a consenting party. Even in Chennai
she stayed for a period of 30 days, however,
she never made any effort to raise alarm
which shows that she went with the appellant
with her consent.

28. So far as the photocopy of the high
school marksheet which has been produced
before the trial court is concerned, it has not
been proved by the prosecution, thus, no
reliance could be placed upon it by the trial
court
while
convicting
the
appellant.
Certificate of CMO according to which the
prosecutrix is major has been proved by PW4. No corroborative material has been found
by PW-4 while examining the prosecutrix.
The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 are
contradictory to that of the prosecutrix so far
as her age is concerned.

29. Thus, it appears to be a case of
false implication. The prosecutrix was
more than 17 years at the time of the
offence and prior to the amendment by
virtue of Act 13 of 2013 with effect from
03.02.2013, age of consent for the purposes
of Section 375 IPC was 16 years, hence, no
offence under Section 376 IPC could have
been said to be made out.

30. In view of the above, the
judgment
impugned dated
19.09.2006
(supra) is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
The accused-appellant is acquitted. If he is
on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and the
sureties discharged.

31. Let the lower court record be sent
back to the trial court along with a copy of
this judgment.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1317
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2184 of 2023

Sahab Lal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vineet Kumar Mishra, Malti Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154 (1) &
156(3) - Against rejection of application -
Maintainability - As per FIR, son of
informant was beaten cruelly by opposite
party no.2 - He refused to go to school -
When
he
again
attended
school
on
21.9.2022,
he
was
again
beaten
-
Thereafter, he fell ill, became incapable of