Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand ..Applicant/ vs Bharat Lal on 1 August, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Special Leave Application (SPLA) No.335 of 2024
In
Government Appeal No.216 of 2024
State of Uttarakhand ..Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
Bharat Lal ...Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State/
appellant.
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Per: Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024)
As per office report, there is a delay of 04 days in
preferring this Government Appeal as well as leave to appeal
application. Since, we have satisfied with the reasons, so
furnished, which occasioned in delay condonation application,
therefore, delay of 04 days is condoned. Delay condonation
application (IA/1/2024) made therefor, is allowed.
Special Leave to Appeal No.335 of 2024
2. The State has preferred this application seeking
leave to appeal against judgment and order dated 08.04.2024
passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Special
Sessions Trial No.51 of 2013 State Vs. Bharat Lal, whereby,
the respondent-accused was acquitted of the charges punishable
under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) IPC and under Section 5(l) read
with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act 2012.
3. The case of the prosecution set on motion on
receiving a written complaint by PW-2 father of the victim
(PW-1) stating therein that his daughter (PW-1) left her home
for Banchaura on 21.05.2023 at about 08:00 AM for getting
books, but, after extensive search, PW-1 was not traceable and
requested the police of PS Dharasu District Uttarkashi to search
for his daughter PW-1).
4. On the basis of the aforesaid, a Case Crime No.46
of 2023 was registered against the unknown persons under
Section 363 IPC. Investigation was ensued. During
investigation, PW-1 was recovered on 23.05.2023 in the house
of Mohan Singh Tomar from the possession of the respondent-
Bharat Lal and respondent was arrested. On 24.05.2023, victim
PW-1 was medically examined; her statement was recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and evidence regarding her age
was also collected from her school. The site plan was prepared
on 03.06.2023 at the pointing out of PW-1 and finally on
16.07.2023, a charge-sheet was submitted against the
respondent-accused under Sections 363 and 376(2)(n) IPC and
Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act.
5. According to the case of the prosecution, at the time
of commission of offence, the victim was a minor and her date
of birth was recorded in the certificate issued by the School as
09.02.2007.
6. The prosecution examined as many as ten
witnesses, namely, PW-1 victim, PW-2 father of the victim, ,
PW-3 Mohan Singh, PW-4 Dr. Nikita Mamgain who medically
examined the victim, PW-5 Dt. Saumya Bisht, PW-6 Head
Constable Jayveer Singh Rana, PW-7 In-charge Principal of the
victim's school, PW-8 First Investigating Officer S.I. Megha
Alkoti, PW-9 L.C. Maya and PW-10 Second Investigating
Officer S.I. Shashi, before the learned trial court to prove its
case against the respondent-accused and respondent also
examined DW-1 Bhuvneshwar Prasad in order to prove a copy
of the family register, in which, date of birth of the prosecutrix
was recorded as 01.01.2005. Thereafter, the statement of
respondent/accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in
which, he stated that he has been falsely implicated with the
aforesaid crime by the prosecution.
7. After meticulously examining the evidence on
record, learned trial court acquitted the respondent of the
charges, as stated in Para 2 above.
8. Learned State Counsel submitted that the learned
trial court misread the evidence and ignored the sufficient
credible evidence available on record and returned wrong and
erroneous findings on the respondent-accused.
9. It is argued by learned State Counsel after going
through the impugned judgment that the prosecution has been
successful in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt,
against the respondent-accused and on wrong appreciation of
the evidence, respondent was acquitted. Impugned judgment
passed by learned trial court is absolutely not tenable in the
eyes of law.
10. We have gone through the judgment with the
assistance of the learned State Counsel. We found that
sufficient reasons have been given by the learned trial court for
disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned
Special Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi disbelieved the theory of the
prosecution that at the time of commission of offence, the
victim was minor and her date of birth was 09.02.2007. As
against this, respondent filed a document i.e. family register in
his evidence, which is proved by the defence witness. The
evidence proved by the defence witness was believed by the
learned trial court for the purpose of ascertaining the age of the
victim. According to the family register, the date of birth of
victim was 01.01.2005 and the date which was recorded in the
school was disbelieved on the ground that the in-charge
Principal of the school (PW-7) admitted in his evidence that in
the Guard File of the school, copy of Aadhar Card of PW-1 is
attached, wherein, her date of birth is recorded as 01.01.2005
and he further deposed that he cannot say as to how the date of
birth of the victim (PW-1) was recorded as 09.02.2007 in
Primary School at the time of her admission. On appreciation
of the evidence, learned trial court reached to the conclusion
that the prosecution failed to prove conclusively the age of the
victim, rather, it is proved on record that the date of birth of the
victim was 01.01.2005. Accordingly, at the time of commission
of the offence, victim was more than 18 years of age.
11. Learned trial court on appreciation of the evidence,
reached to the conclusion that the sexual relations which were
developed between the victim and the respondent were
consensual, as in the evidence of victim (PW-1) in Para 12, 13
& 14 of the impugned judgment, she deposed that "respondent-
accused took her to Kempty Mussoorie, where he took a room;
I stayed there with him from 21.05.2023 to 23.05.2023. During
these two days, respondent-accused made sexual relations
forcibly with her several times. On 23.05.2023, police came to
the room at Kempty Mussoorie, where police recovered her
with the respondent-accused". From entire appreciation of the
evidence in Para 44 of the impugned judgment, learned trial
court came to this conclusion, that the relations, which were
developed between the victim and the respondent-accused,
were consensual and the victim went with respondent out of her
own volition and will.
12. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned
judgment dated 08.04.2024 passed by learned Special Sessions
Judge, Uttarkashi. As a result, application seeking leave to
appeal is rejected.
Government Appeal No.216 of 2024
13. Since, we have declined to grant leave to appeal to
the State, accordingly, Government Appeal No.216 of 2024 is
also dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
01.08.2024
PN/-
