State Of Uttarakhand vs Surjan Singh
2024 Latest Caselaw 1052 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

State Of Uttarakhand vs Surjan Singh on 4 June, 2024

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

                                  AND

                JUSTICE SHRI PANKAJ PUROHIT

            Special Leave to Appeal No.134 of 2024

                                  With

               Government Appeal No.81 of 2024

                          04TH June, 2024

State of Uttarakhand                                    ...... Appellant

                                   Vs.

Surjan Singh                                        ...... Respondent


Present:-
            Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.


JUDGMENT:

(per the Justice Shri Pankaj Purohit)

Delay condonation application (IA No.1 of 2024).

1. Heard learned Brief Holder for the State on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. As per the Office Report, there is a delay of 81 days in filing this appeal.

3. In view of reasons, pressed in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the delay is condoned. Delay condonation application stands allowed, accordingly.

Special Leave to Appeal No.134 of 2024

4. Heard learned Brief Holder for the State/appellant on the application for special leave to appeal.

5. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure along with application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2023 passed by Learned Addl. Session Judge/FTSC Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Session Trial No.186 of 2019 State Vs. Surjan Singh, whereby the said court has acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge of offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 IPC.

6. The facts in nutshell are that on the basis of a report given by the victim on 19.03.2018 at Police Station Nanakmatta, the case was registered against the respondent-accused on the said date at 09:30 PM. The allegations in the FIR were that the victim and the respondent-accused were in love affairs with each other since 2008 and the respondent-accused on the pretext of marring the victim, kept on establishing physical relations with her continuously for six years. The accused, however, did not stick to his promise and rather he married with some other girl in the year 2017. In the year 2015, when the father of victim had a talk with the family of accused, the accused gave a threat of life to the victim. The charge was accordingly framed against the respondent-accused. Total eight witnesses, namely,

PW1 victim, PW2 Father of the victim, PW3 mother of the victim, PW4 sister of the victim, PW5 brother of the victim, PW6 SI Santosh Negi, PW7 Dr. Abhilasha Pandey and PW8 SI Ganesh Dutt Bhatt were examined on the behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court by way of impugned judgment and order has passed the order of acquittal, hence, this appeal by the State.

7. The grounds of acquittal as recorded by the trial court is that the victim herself stated in her statement before the trial court that she had love affair with the respondent-accused for six years, when the accused established physical relation with her for the first time, he did so on the pretext of marring her. In cross examination she has stated that even after the marriage of respondent-accused, she used to meet with respondent-accused and then also physical relations were developed between them for two and three times. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that the victim is an educated lady and matured one, however, establishment of physical relations with her by the respondent-accused continuously for six years goes to show that the physical relations were not established merely on the pretext of marriage else no lady would have permitted developing physical relations on the mere promise of marriage.

8. In the cross examination she also admitted that she had earlier moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was rejected. However, the case was registered as complaint case wherein the victim in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., has admitted that the accused did not establish relations with her on the pretext of marriage.

9. The Trial Court has also recorded the finding that the victim could have moved an application before the competent court against the order of rejection of her application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which she did not.

10. The victim and the accused were related to each other and as per the evidence of victim, she had love affair with the accused and as per statement of PW-2, parents of accused were not ready for marriage with victim. There was no evidence produced on behalf of prosecution that time when the accused stated to have established the relations with the victim, at that time the accused was unmarried. On totality of aforesaid facts and circumstances the trial court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the respondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt.

11. We have carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the Trial court and we are in full agreement with the findings recorded by the trial

court for acquittal of respondent-accused. Learned counsel appearing for the State could not argue any substantial fact or compelling reasons so as to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial court.

12. It is settled proposition of law that where two views are possible and one view adopted by the trial court is also worthy acceptance, in that situation the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the findings of acquittal.

13. The Trial Court also recorded the finding that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not make any averments that the accused had ever threatened to kill her. Had the accused really done so, the victim in her previous statement must have mentioned this fact. Non-mention of this fact by the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the allegation made by her loses its credence as the accused actually gave threat to kill her. Hence the offence under Section 506 of IPC is also not made out.

14. In our considered view, there is no ground much less reasonable to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is liable to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.

Government Appeal No.81 of 2024

15. In view of the fact that we have declined to grant leave to appeal to the State against the impugned judgment, the Government Appeal is also dismissed at the threshold.

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

Dated: 4th June, 2024 BS