STATE OF U P Vs. BABU AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for leave to appeal arises out of judgment dated 06.07.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-4, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial Nos. 1210 of 2003 recording acquittal of accused-respondents in an offence registered under Sections 342 and 376 read with Section 120-B I.P.C.

(2.) It appears from the prosecution case narrated in the impugned judgment that on 25-07-2003 all the accused persons trespassed into the house of complainant Ram Dayal and forcibly picked up his daughter, aged about 13 years, and then confined her to one closed room and then one of the accused Babu forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and other three co-accused remained sitting outside the house. The explanation of delay in the lodgment of the report given by complainant was that his complaint was not recorded/registered at Police Station, therefore, he made a separate complaint to the concerned Superintendent of Police on 06.08.2003, and pursuant thereto the F.I.R was lodged on 17.08.2003.

(3.) After investigation, the police put up a challan under Sections 342, 376 and 506 I.P.C and finally the accused were tried upon only for offences under Sections 342 and 376 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. Prosecution examined seven witnesses apart from placing on record documentary evidence. Accused persons, viz, main accused Babu son of Khushi, Munim son of Kalicharan, Santu son of Hardeo and Malikhe son of Damodar Lunia in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, before the trial court, denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication on account of past enmity. Accused, Babu explained that the prosecutrix was staying with his maternal uncle, Ram Khelawan one year prior to the date of incident. Further the village pradhan, Gangadhar was also on inimical terms with him as he had refused to work as a labourer, therefore, at his instance he has been framed up in this case. Trial court noticed the delay in the lodgment of F.I.R. It was also noted that there was no mark of external violence to show that there was a tussle during alleged forcible sexual intercourse. Therefore, an inference was drawn that this was a case of consensual sexual intercourse. That apart, the solitary evidence of prosecutrix in the attending circumstances is that accused Badu was found to be related to her. Her age was noticed to be between 17 and 19 years in medical examination, hence the trial court recorded the acquittal.