The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday acquitted Ubhan Yadav, accused of raping and killing a minor. He had been awarded the death sentence by a Sessions court. The court gave this verdict by giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused and allowing his appeal. The bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Rajeev Singh passed this order while hearing a criminal appeal filed by Ubhan alias Abhai Kumar Yadav.
Ubhan was tried by the trial court and Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki, Satya Prakash Naik and was convicted under Sections 302 376 & 201 I.P.C. Ubhan challenged the August 29, 2014 order.
The counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence from the correct perspective. The counsel said that as per the prosecution’s case, the deceased went out from her home on March 30, 2013, at 2 pm, which was categorically stated by Siyavati (mother of the deceased) and she also stated that when the deceased did not come back till 4-5 pm, they started searching for her. She also informed her husband who was working in the spinning mill and came home within half an hour and thereafter. He, along with others, started searching. Then the body of the deceased was found in the grove of Pratap Singh under the blackberry tree.
The councel also submitted that Vinay Prakash was produced before the trial Court, who categorically stated before the Court below that the incident was of March 30, 2013, and on the said date when he was coming back after watching his agricultural field in between 2- 2:30 pm, he saw that co-villager Ubhan Yadav was coming out from the grove of Pratap Singh and going towards the village from the west side of Khaliyan, and when the accused saw the witness (Vinay Prakash), he moved fast but the witness did not notice his activity and went to his home. When on the same day at 8 pm the body of the deceased was found in the grove of Pratap Singh, then he believed that the incident was caused by the appellant; he also stated in examination-in-chief that the fact was brought into the notice of family members of the deceased as well as Investigating Officer and also stated that the appellant does not have good character.
Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that trial Court also acted very negligently as the order sheet reveals that on July 30, 2013, Amicus Curiae was informed about his engagement as counsel for the accused and on the same date charges were framed, meaning thereby, no opportunity was given to the Amicus Curiae for appellant to prepare for his submissions at the stage of framing of charge.
Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the trial court observed that the appellant was aged about 35 years without any evidence, but the medico-legal report reveals that he was aged about 27 years at the time of the incident.
The Government Advocate has submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence deposed before the trial Court. He also submitted that in the case, the modesty of twelve year’s old girl was outraged by the appellant, and thereafter, she was strangulated to death. He also submitted that the involvement of the appellant was found during the course of the investigation and he was arrested on April 01, 2013.
Thereafter, the accused was medically examined and some injuries were found on his genital parts which was caused due to physical relation with the deceased (minor).
The Government Advocate has also submitted that the appellant was medically examined and smegma was present on his genital part and the abrasion was also found and the color of the abrasion is bluish-black due to force penetration. He also submitted that the deceased was mentally retarded and the offense comes into the category of rarest of the rare cases as the twelve year’s old mentally retarded girl was raped and thereafter, murdered.
“The Court is conscious of the fact that in the present case 12 years old girl has been sexually assaulted and done to death by throttling, but the fact remains that whether it was the appellant who has committed the alleged crime appears to be doubtful. In such circumstances, the Court comes to the conclusion that the manner in which the prosecution tried to establish the execution of crime is doubtful”, the Court observed.
“Hence, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The incident does not appear to have happened in the manner in which the prosecution wants the Court to believe it had happened. Therefore, the appellant becomes entitled for the benefit of the doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed”, the Court said.
“The appellant – Ubhan Yadav @ Abhai Kumar Yadav -is in jail. Let the appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case. It is further directed that the appellant namely Ubhan Yadav @ Abhai Kumar Yadav shall furnish bail bond with sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in terms of the provision of Section 437-A CrPC”, the Court ordered.