SONU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence of the appellant Sonu S/o Late Phool Chand, under Sec. 363, 366, 376D I.P.C. and Sec. 5/6 of POCSO Act in Session Trial No. 8/2018 in Case Crime No. 111/2017, P.S. Kotwali, District Vindhyachal, U.P. By Special Judge POCSO Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur on 14/10/2020.

(2.) The grounds of appeal are that there was no evidence on record to prove the alleged incident. No one had seen Sonu along with the victim on the date and time of incident. Though, it is stated that the victim was kidnapped at about 10:00 A.M from the nearby market place, no eye-witness saw the occurrence in day light makes the allegation improbable. No witness, neither father nor mother of the victim were aware about the date-of-birth of the victim as to whether at the time of occurrence she was minor or not. There was dispute between the father of the victim and the uncle of the appellant. The victim had relations with Dinesh and Sonu. Sonu has helped the victim to get married with Dinesh. Sonu has been made scapegoat in the matter. There are glaring contradiction between the statement and cross-examination of the witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. The Trial Judge has not relied upon the medical age already framing mind to convict the appellant. In cross-examination, witness has stated that Sonu had done nothing and had not gone with the victim though at some places, victim has deposed against the appellant. There is no explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. after three months from the incident. The victim has stated to the I.O. that she was living in Bahraich with her husband Dinesh. There is no independent eye-witness. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have given heresay evidence. The charge is not proved from the evidence of sole witness, victim P.W.-3. Appellant has no previous criminal antecedent, therefore, the appeal be allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court be quashed.

(3.) In brief, the case of the prosecution is this that informant/plaintiff PW1- Ram Ashrey father of the victim, moved an application for lodging the F.I.R. with the averment that on 27/10/2016, daughter of the informant P.W.- 1 aged about 17 years old left the house at about 10 A.M. for school, appellant-Sonu with two unknown youngsters kidnapped and abducted her daughter. Even after prolong search, he could not find her daughter. He used to talk with his daughter from an unknown mobile no. 9565005779 provided by Sonu. Sonu informed P.W.-1 that on mobile no. 946763015, he will know about his daughter. Through that given mobile number, he contacted his daughter who informed that she was in Jammu and Kashmir.