Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22871-DB Court No. - 45 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 31 of 2025 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Rakesh S/O Sarvan Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Present appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Sessions Trial No. 497 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Rakesh), whereby the learned court below has acquitted the accused person under Sections 376, 366, 323 and 506 I.P.C. 3. The appeal has been presented with a delay of 90 days. Besides the issue of delay, it is noted, according to the prosecution story, the victim (hereinafter referred to as 'X') was aged about 14 years of age when she was abducted by the accused person on 13.01.2021 at about 2:00 p.m. On such written 'Tehrir' submitted by the informant who is the mother of the victim girl, an FIR was registered in Case Crime No. 28 of 2021 under Section 363 IPC. Later, i.e. after about six months the 'X' was described to have been recovered. At that stage, upon her statement being recorded and other investigation being conducted including medical examination of 'X', charge sheet was submitted under Sections 363, 323, 506 and 376 IPC on 02.07.2021. At the trial, the prosecution relied on 8 witnesses namely 'X' (PW-1), mother of 'X' (PW-2), Dr. Nidhi Upadhyay (PW-3), Constable Shailja Tiwari (PW-4), Head Constable Pankaj Kumar Rai (PW-5), Dr. Brajnandan (Radiologist) (PW-6), I.O. Ramnarayan Dubey (PW-7) and Dr. N.P. Gupta (PW-8). 4. Though the 'X' led oral evidence to support the allegation of abduction and rape committed by the accused person, at the same time, as to the occurrence it was her statement that the accused person had enticed her on a false promise of marriage. The two travelled to and stayed in the State of Punjab, for four months. Thereafter, they returned to Uttar Pradesh and stayed together for further two months. During that long period of six months, the accused person is stated to have committed repeated rape on 'X'. She made further allegations of physical assault and threats issued to her. On the insistence of 'X', the accused person is described to have finally dropped 'X' at Ramkola Railway Station, from where she was recovered by the police. Such statement was made by 'X' during investigation including her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The mother of 'X' PW-2 also supported the FIR allegations. Dr. Nidhi Upadhyay (PW-3) examined the accused on 24.06.2021. She did not notice any external injury. She further stated, the 'X' was found to be carrying pregnancy at the time of her examination. 5. Dr. N.P. Gupta (PW-8) was examined on the issue of age of 'X'. Here, it may be noted, according to the prosecution story the 'X' is illiterate and there exists no school certificate or birth certificate. In such circumstances, PW-8 examined 'X' and formed his medical opinion that she was about 18 years of age, on the date of occurrence. 6. It is in such circumstances and facts proven before the learned court below it has first inferred that 'X' was not a minor but an adult person more than 18 years of age. That finding recorded by the learned court below has not been assailed in this appeal. 7. What remains to be seen is if the ingredients of offence alleged under Section 366 IPC, allegation of false promise of marriage and rape, were made out. On the own showing of 'X', she accompanied the accused person though upon enticement practiced by the accused person. In the context that she had attained the age of majority and in absence of any force or like fact alleged or proven by the prosecution, the learned court below has rightly reached a conclusion that 'X' had accompanied the accused person of her own freewill. Thus, according to her own admission, 'X' continued to live with the accused person for four months at Punjab and another two months inside the State of U.P. yet she lodged no earlier criminal complaint etc. making any allegation of abduction or of rape. Further, it is not her case that she ever resisted her continued abduction or rape over a long duration of six months. In that evidence the learned court below has rightly disbelieved the prosecution assertion that 'X' had been abducted and raped. Then, it is also her case of 'X' that at her insistence, the accused person had dropped her at Ramkola Railway Station. Thus, no allegation was made out as may have allowed the learned court below to reach any other conclusion. 8. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the learned court below is well considered and based on evidence and material brought by the prosecution. The order passed by the learned court below does not suffer from any infirmity. A simple statement of 'X' who had formed voluntary relationship with the accused person may never have been enough to convict the accused person, in such facts. 9. Accordingly, both for reason of delay and lack of merit, the present leave to appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Abhilash . (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad