HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 378 DEFECTIVE No. - 134 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. (Order on C.M.A. No. 01 of 2025) 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The Office has reported a delay of 463 days in filing the appeal. 3. On due consideration of submissions and the ground shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the ground is sufficient to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay is hereby condoned. (Order on Application/Appeal) 1. We have heard learned A.G.A. appearing for the State/appellant and have also perused the record available before us. 2. By means of the present application/appeal filed under Section 419(3) of B.N.S.S., 2023, the State has sought leave to appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Court No.12, Sultanpur in Special Session Trial No. 531 of 2019 (State Vs. Akshay Kumar alias Rahul) arising out of Case Crime No.116 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4, 7/8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station- Lambhua, District- Sultanpur, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : G.A. Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Applicant(s) Akshay Kumar Alias Rahul And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent no.1, namely, Akshay Kumar alias Rahul for the offenses under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4, 7/8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act. 3. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the prosecution in question was initiated on the written complaint of the informant of the case in question given on 02.03.2019, on which, the F.I.R. No. 116 of 2019 (supra) was lodged with the allegation that the respondent no.1/accused allured and enticed away his daughter/victim who was not traceable from 23.02.2019 and had taken away the ornaments of her mother alongwith cash of Rs. 30,000/-. Further allegations are that on 20.02.2019, the informant scolded the accused, due to which, the said incident was occurred. It has further been submitted that the victim was recovered, whose statements were recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. and after collection of relevant evidence, the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and 7/8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, after that, cognizance was taken by learned Special Judge and charge was framed under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 & 7/8 of P.O.C.S.O. Act. As the respondent no.1 denied the prosecution story and requested for trial, the trial was proceeded. 4. The prosecution has relied on oral evidence of four witnesses, viz., P.W.-1 - informant of the case in question, P.W.-2 - victim, P.W.-3 - Subhash Chandra (Head Master) and P.W.-4 - Santosh Kumari (Head Constable). The prosecution has relied on seven documentary evidence proved by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses. 5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the accused relied on three documentary evidence and produced defense witnesses, i.e., D.W.-1 - Amit Kumar (Clerk) and D.W.-2 - Gautam and D.W.-3 - Sobhnath. 6. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that learned trial Court failed to consider the deposition of the victim (P.W.-2) and acquitted the accused merely on the basis of presumption. Thus, the submission is that application for leave to appeal is liable to be allowed by summoning the respondent no.1. A378D No. 134 of 2025 2 7. Considering the submissions of learned A.G.A. and perusing the record as well as impugned judgment of the trial Court, it is apparent that the F.I.R. in question was lodged on 02.03.2019 relating to the incident dated 23.02.2019 with the allegation that the victim was allured and enticed away by the respondent no.1 and this incident was occurred as the victim's father scolded the accused on 20.02.2019. It is also alleged therein that the victim took away the ornaments of her mother alongwith cash of Rs. 30,000/-. 8. On perusal of the record, it is evident that during investigation, the victim came back to her house on her own wish after seven to ten days of the incident, after which, the informant brought her to the police station. Thereafter, the victim's statements were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that as she was being beaten by her step-mother, she went to Allahabad on her own wish with the respondent no.1 who is her cousin by relation of village, where she stayed with one Anjali, and when the F.I.R. in question came to her notice, she came back to her house. It is also stated by her that she had not taken away any ornament or cash and the respondent no.1 had not committed any wrong with her. In the victim's deposition recorded before the trial Court, she denied for her medico legal examination. The prosecution tried to develop a case that the victim was aged about 16 years at the time of incident, but D.W.-1, namely, Amit Kumar, who was Clerk in S.S. Higher Secondary School, Sankarpur, stated that as per S.R. register, the name of the victim is found at serial no.55 and her date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.2001 and she appeared in the High School Examination in 2019 and her roll number was 1873634. Thus, it is apparent that at the time of the incident, the victim was major in age. Moreover, the D.W.-2 - Gautam and the D.W.-3 - Sobhnath stated that during the period of incident, the respondent no.1 was staying with them and the victim never came to them. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the respondent no.1 observing that at the time of the incident, the victim was aged about 18 years 1 month 21 days and the prosecution failed to establish its case. 10. As it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while A378D No. 134 of 2025 3 exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to re- appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence and this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh And Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 as well as Anwar Ali and Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 10 SCC 166. 11. Thus, having considered the matter in its totality and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's case (supra) and Anwar Ali's case (supra), we find that the trial court's findings regarding acquittal of accused herein are based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record which do not in any manner appear to be improbable or perverse. 12. On the basis of forgoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. 13. Since the application for leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive and the same stands dismissed. September 11, 2025 Arpan A378D No. 134 of 2025 4 (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench