STATE OF U.P. Vs. RAHUL CHAUBEY
LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-122
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
March 18,2021
STATE OF U.P.
Appellant
VERSUS
Rahul Chaubey
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SIRAJUDDIN @ SIRAJ VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]MAHADEO LAXMAN SARANE AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MRINAL DAS AND OTHERS V. STATE OF TRIPURA [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN SINGH VS. HARMIT KAUR [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH BABULAL DOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
C ANTONY VS. K G RAGHAVAN NAIR [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. RAMESH [REFERRED TO]
BHAJJU ALIAS KARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
ROHTASH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MOOKKIAH VS. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SAMPAT BABSO KALE AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In Re:-Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No. 90 of 2021, under Section 378 (3) Cr.PC.
We have heard learned A.G.A and have perused the leave application, the grounds of appeal and the judgment of the court below.
(2.)The application seeking the leave to appeal against the common judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.12.2020 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, (Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) 2012, Court no. 2, Varanasi in Special Sessions Trial No 96 of 2014 (State of UP. v. Rahul Chaube and 2 others), under Sections 363, 366, 376A, 506, 342, 386 Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and under sections 4, 16, 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Special Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2014 (State v. Sanjay Chaube), under Sections 363, 366, 506, 342, 386 I.P.C. and under Sections 16, 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, arising out of case crime no. 173 of 2014, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi, has been filed on behalf of the State (the appellant).
(3.)The accused-respondents Rahul Chaube, Smt. Reeta Chaube and Shiv Dutt Tiwari were sent for trial on the charges under Sections 363, 366, 376A, 506, 342, 386 I.P.C. and under Sections 4, 16, 17 of the POCSO Act. The accused Sanjay Chaube died during the course of the trial, as such, proceeding against him was abated on 5.1.2018.
We have heard learned A.G.A and have perused the leave application, the grounds of appeal and the judgment of the court below.
(2.)The application seeking the leave to appeal against the common judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.12.2020 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, (Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) 2012, Court no. 2, Varanasi in Special Sessions Trial No 96 of 2014 (State of UP. v. Rahul Chaube and 2 others), under Sections 363, 366, 376A, 506, 342, 386 Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and under sections 4, 16, 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Special Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2014 (State v. Sanjay Chaube), under Sections 363, 366, 506, 342, 386 I.P.C. and under Sections 16, 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, arising out of case crime no. 173 of 2014, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi, has been filed on behalf of the State (the appellant).
(3.)The accused-respondents Rahul Chaube, Smt. Reeta Chaube and Shiv Dutt Tiwari were sent for trial on the charges under Sections 363, 366, 376A, 506, 342, 386 I.P.C. and under Sections 4, 16, 17 of the POCSO Act. The accused Sanjay Chaube died during the course of the trial, as such, proceeding against him was abated on 5.1.2018.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.