Uttarakhand High Court
SPLA/51/2023 on 29 March, 2023
Office Notes, reports,
orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
SPLA No.51 of 2023
Connected With
GA No.19 of 2023
With
IA/1/2023 (Delay Condonation Application)
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder
for the State/ Appellant.
This State Appeal, which has been
preferred against the judgment of acquittal
whereby one of the co-accused, Thaan Singh,
the respondent herein, has been acquitted for
his involvement in the commission of offences
under Section 203 r/w Section 120-B of IPC
to be read with Section 16/ 17 of the POCSO
Act.
The appeal is supported with Delay
Condonation Application seeking
condonation of 81 days of delay which has
chanced in preferring the appeal.
Having heard the learned Government
Advocate on the Delay Condonation
Application and being satisfied on the same,
for the reasons given the Delay Condonation
Application would stand allowed.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant
on application for leave to appeal.
In the judgment impugned which is
under challenge i.e. dated 30.09.2022, the
respondent herein had been acquitted of his
charges under Section 203 r/w 120-B of IPC
and Section 16/ 17 of the POCSO Act.
The applicant's son, Neeraj, was shown
to be involved in the commission of offences
under Section 363, 366A and under Section
376(n) as well as Section 5/6 of the POCSO
Act and, accordingly, he has been convicted
by the Court of learned Special Sessions
Judge, Uttarkashi in S.S.T. No.41 of 2019.
So far as the present respondent's role
pertaining to the commission of the offence
under Section 203 r/w 120-B of IPC is
concerned, the learned Sessions Court had
considered the evidence which was adduced
by PW10 and PW11 and, particularly, the
statement which was recorded by PW7,
wherein the Court has observed that the
prosecution has absolutely failed to prove
that the present respondent - Thaan Singh,
was at all responsible in laying down a
conspiracy in collusion with the principal
accused person- his son for commission of
offences under Section 203 r/w Section 120-
B of IPC. The Court has observed that even
looking to the statement of PW11, who, in his
statement, recorded on 02.08.2019, has
stated that he had never deposited the
amount of ₹20,000/- into the account of the
principal accused person. Not even that, the
statement of PW12 Abinash Mall was
recorded, who has stated that in the account
of Devraj as it was standing in his bank, the
bank slip does find the signature of Devraj,
but there was no transaction which had
taken place into the account of the present
respondent.
The learned Court has carved out an
exception that the so called deposit made of
₹20,000/- into the account of Neeraj, the
principal accused person, in which the
Investigating Officer had not scrutinised the
slip by virtue of which the deposit was made
and the same was not compared with the
signature of the depositor and nor its
analysis was made in comparison of
verification of signature of Thaan Singh.
Hence, the Court has observed that, it has
been proved beyond doubt that Thaan Singh
was not at all involved in depositing the
amount of ₹20,000/-into the account of his
son, nor the same has been proved contrary
by the prosecution.
Owning to the findings which have been
recorded by the trial Court on appreciation of
the evidence of that of the statement recorded
by PW7, PW10 and PW11 in the absence of
there being a comparative analysis of the
signatures of the deposit made into the
account of Neeraj, no commission of offence
under Section 203 r/w 120-B of IPC was
found to be made against the respondent.
In that view of the matter, this Court is
of the view that it is not a fit case in which
the leave to appeal is required to be granted
to the appellant as against the judgment of
acquittal of the respondent. Hence, the
application for leave to appeal stands
rejected.
Consequently, the appeal, too, would
stand dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
29.03.2023
Sukhbant
