Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand vs Gurbinder Singh on 10 April, 2024
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI ALOK KUMAR VERMA
10TH APRIL, 2024
SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.45 OF 2014
IN
GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. 22 OF 2014
State of Uttarakhand ........Appellant
Versus
Gurbinder Singh ........Respondent
With
GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. 23 OF 2014
State of Uttarakhand ........Appellant
Versus
Balvinder Singh alias Billa ........Respondents
and Satpal alias Kali
Counsel for the : Mr. Amit Bhatt, Government
appellant /State Advocate assisted by Mr.
Pankaj Joshi, Brief Holder.
Counsel for the : Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate.
Respondents
Judgment: (per Mr. Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
These two Appeals have arisen from a
common judgment dated 02.09.2023, passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial
No.92 of 2012, "State vs. Gurbinder Singh" and in
Sessions Trial No. 279 of 2012, "State vs. Balvinder
Singh alias Billa and Satpal alias Kali," by which, the
2
respondents - accused persons have been acquitted
from the offence punishable under Section 342 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, "I.P.C.") and Section
376 (2) (g) I.P.C.
2. The delay of 100 days in filing the Government
Appeal No.23 of 2014 was condoned and leave to appeal
was granted on 10.12.2015.
3. The delay of 100 days in filing the Government
Appeal No.22 of 2014 is condoned and leave to appeal is
granted. Admit the Government Appeal No.22 of 2014.
4. The Government Appeal No.22 of 2014 will be
treated as a leading case.
5. In short, the prosecution case is that the
prosecutrix's father (PW1) informed the police
Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar through his
written information dated 15.11.2011 (Ext. Ka2) that on
the night of 11/12.11.2011, his daughter (PW1) had
gone for defecation. She did not return home. He had
given an information to the police on 12.11.2011. She
returned home on the evening of 13.11.2011. She told
that when she had gone to the field to defecate,
Balvinder Singh alias Billa, Gurbinder alias Ginda and
Satpal Singh alias Kali forcibly took her away after
showing her weapon and raped her in the forest for two
days. He took his daughter to Khatima Hospital the next
day.
3
6. On the said information (Ext. Ka.2), an FIR
(Ext. Ka.3) was registered by Constable Ganesh Tamta
(PW3) on 15.11.2011 at 20.35 hrs.
7. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. Her medical examination was conducted. The
clothes, she was wearing at the time of the said incident,
were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per
report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. Ka.17),
semen was detected on Salwar and underwear of the
prosecutrix. Upon conclusion of the investigation,
charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.19) was filed by Sub-Inspector
Sandhya Rani (PW10).
8. Charges under Section 342 I.P.C. and Section
376(2) (g) I.P.C. were framed against the respondents -
accused persons. As the accused persons pleaded
innocence, trial was held.
9. The prosecution examined ten witnesses.
10. Statements under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The
respondents - accused persons denied all the
incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned counsel for the State
submitted that the evidence, adduced by the
prosecution, are trustworthy, which are enough to
establish the involvement of the respondents - accused
persons in the commission of the crime.
4
13. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate,
appearing for the respondents has supported the
impugned judgment. He contended that the prosecutrix,
a major lady, wanted to marry Gurbinder Singh and
when her marriage did not take place with him, she
falsely implicated the respondents by creating a
concocted story.
14. We have carefully assessed the evidence,
adduced by the prosecution.
15. On 01.12.2011, Dr. L.S. Toliya (PW7) took
X-ray of the prosecutrix to determine her age. According
to him, her age was between 19 to 21 years.
16. The prosecutrix (PW1) has stated that the
incident place was a sugarcane field, 2-3 fields away
from her house. The accused persons had kept her in the
said field for three days and three nights. They had
raped her in that field. Hardayal had seen her in the
sugarcane field. The prosecutrix's brother-in-law (Jija)
(PW5) has stated that Hardayal had told that she
(prosecutrix) was sitting in the sugarcane field. Then he
and other persons went there and brought her home.
The proseuctrix's father (PW2) has stated that he does
not know any Hardayal. Hardayal has not been
examined by the prosecution. This serious shortcoming
makes the prosecution's case doubtful.
17. It has been stated by the prosecutrix that she
was not able to walk. Medical examination of the
prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Sunita Chufal (PW6)
on 16.11.2011. She has stated that no external injury
5
was found on the prosecutrix's body and there was no
injury on her private parts either. Her hymen was torn.
She was addicted to sex.
18. Dr. Shamiuneesha (PW4) conducted the
medical examination of the prosecutrix on 30.11.2011.
She has stated that no external injury was found on the
prosecutrix's body and there was no injury on her vagina
either. Her hymen was torn. At the time of examination,
her age was between 19 to 21 years.
19. Sub-Inspector Diwan Singh (PW8), Sub-
Inspector Asha Bist (PW9) and Sub-Inspector Sandhya
Rani (PW10) are the investigating officers. These three
investigating officers had taken the statement of the
prosecutrix. According to them, prosecutrix had not
mentioned the incident of forcibly raping her by the
accused persons. It has been stated by Sub-Inspector
Diwan Singh (PW8) that the prosecutrix had given him a
statement that if Gurbinder Singh did not marry her, she
would send him to jail.
20. On assessing the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents gets strength that the
prosecutrix wanted to marry Gurbinder Singh and when
her marriage did not take place with him, she implicated
the respondents by creating a concocted story.
21. On a detailed examination and scrutiny of the
evidence of the prosecution, this Court upholds the view
taken by the learned Trial Court. There is no positive and
conclusive evidence placed on record against the
6
respondents by the prosecution to prove its case that the
respondents were guilty of committing the alleged
offence. They deserve benefit of doubt. We are,
therefore, in complete agreement with the view taken by
the learned Trial Court. We see no reason to interfere
with the judgment impugned herein.
22. As a result, the instant both the appeals are
liable to be dismissed. The present Government Appeals
are dismissed accordingly.
23. The bail bonds of the respondents Balvinder
Singh alias Billa and Satpal alias Kali are cancelled and
sureties are discharged.
24. A copy of this judgment be placed on the
record of Government Appeal No.23 of 2014.
_________________
Ritu Bahri, C.J.
_________________
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Dt: 10th April, 2024
JKJ/Pant
