Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is by the State of U.P. questioning the correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 455 of 1985 convicted the two respondents for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The High Court by the impugned judgment set aside the conviction and directed acquittal.
(2.) The factual position need not be narrated in view of the fact that the High Court's order, to say the least, is not only cryptic but also non-reasoned. The High Court for the purpose of directing acquittal only observed as follows: "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have gone through the record. My attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants to the medical evidence on record, which shows that the girl in question was aged about 17 years. She might be thus of 19 years as well. No injury, internal or external was found on her body and she was used to sexual intercourse. The girl in question thus appears to be major and was thus a consenting party and there is no reliable evidence on record to show that she was kidnapped by the accused persons or was raped. The girl in question was returned home safely on the same day. The learned Court below was not thus justified in believing the prosecution theory and convicting the appellants."
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-State highlighted the desirability of recording reasons, particularly, when the analysis of the evidence made and the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court in detailed manner are sought to be upset by the High Court.;