Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11074 Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 DEFECTIVE No. - 32 of 2025 Applicant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Opposite Party :- Shahrukh Khan And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application has been filed with prayer to quash the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.-17, Sitapur in S.T. No.2001 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.152 of 2019 under Sections 354, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Manpur, District- Sitapur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial court has committed error in appreciating the evidence produced before it in the correct prospective. He has further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under section 164 CrPC as well as in her deposition before the trial court has categorically supported the prosecution story but the same was not considered by the trial court and by relying on the cross-examination of PW-2 (victim) and the deposition of PW3- Gyan Devi, alleged eye witness, judgement of acquittal was passed. Therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary. 4. Considering the submission of learned AGA, going through the contents of application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the FIR of case in question was lodged by the brother of the victim, who was examined as PW1. As per the FIR, on 10.06.2019 at about 11 AM, victim, age about 18 years, was going to take medicine along with Gyan Devi, Sangeeta and Suman Devi and when they reached near canal of Nyodiyabak Purva, on their way, private respondent came and caught the hand of victim and started dragging her and when she raised alarm then the private respondent ran away. Thereafter, the written complaint of the alleged incident was given to the police and the investigation was conducted. During the course of investigation, statement of victim was recorded along with other witnesses and charge sheet was submitted. Thereafter, trial was proceeded and during the deposition of PW-1, Santosh before the trial court, he failed to disclose the date of incident and stated that incident was taken place 2 and a 1/2 years ago and he narrated the version as mentioned in the FIR. He also admitted that FIR was lodged on the verbatim given by her sister. From the aforesaid deposition, it is evident fact that PW-1 is not an eye witness. PW-2 (victim) was also examined before the trial court and she also failed to disclose the date of incident in her deposition and stated that she was going to take medicine along with Gyan Devi and Suman, and in the way, private respondent came and caught her hand and dragged her inside the sugarcane field, then on her alarm, he ran away. Thereafter, she came back to her home and narrated the alleged incident to her brother. In her cross examination, victim also stated that at the date of alleged incident, she was aged about 18 years and at that time, there was some enmity between her family and private respondent and on the advice of her brother, private respondent was implicated in the present case. PW-3, Gyan Devi, eye witness of the incident, was also examined before the trial court and she deposed different version of the case stating that on the date of incident, she was going to take medicine along with victim. At the same time, private respondent came by a trolley and caught the hand of victim and when she raised alarm, then the private responded ran away. 5. It is evident from the record that the trial court considered the deposition of victim as well as other witnesses. As the victim in the cross-examination stated different version and eye witness also failed to support the deposition of victim made in her cross-examination, in such circumstance, the trial court has rightly appreciated the statements of PW-1, 2 and 3 while passing the impugned order. Therefore, this court is of the view that the present application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the present leave to appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 V. Sinha Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench