STATE OF U.P. Vs. GEETAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the State along with an application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal dtd. 25/7/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, in Special Session Trial No. 207 of 2017 (State Vs. Geetam), Special Session Trial No. 988 of 2017 (State Vs. Manakchand) and Special Session Trial No. 662 of 2018 (State Vs. Raghuraj), arising out of Case Crime No. 445 of 2016, under Ss. 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C. and Sec. 5/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Jarifnagar, District Budaun.

(2.) The informant in the present case is the father of the 13 year old victim, who has lodged a report on 25/9/2016, stating that on the previous day, i.e., 24/9/2016 at about 04:00 p.m., the victim had gone to cut fodder for the cattle in the field, but when she did not return he became suspicious and came to know that Jugendra, Raghuraj, Manakchand and Geetam, on the threat of illegal firearms, have abducted his daughter. The F.I.R. consequently came to be registered under Ss. 363, 366 I.P.C., and on conclusion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted under Ss. 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C. and Sec. 5/6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act. The accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them and demanded trial.

(3.) During the course of trial, Dr. Rashmi Deep, who had medically examined the victim, has been produced as P.W.2, whereas, Constable Pushpendra Kumar has been produced as P.W.1. The informant has appeared as P.W.3, while the victim has appeared as P.W.4. Other prosecution witnesses are police personnel, who are formal witnesses. The medical report as well as other documents including the statement of the victim under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. has been produced by the prosecution and have been duly exhibited before the court below.