Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand vs Balkaran 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.133 of 2024
With
Government Appeal No.80 of 2024
04TH June, 2024
State of Uttarakhand ...... Appellant
Vs.
Balkaran 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
152 days in filing this appeal.
3. In view of reasons, explained in the affidavit
filed in support of the application, the delay is
condoned. Delay condonation application stands
allowed, accordingly.
Special Leave to Appeal No.133 of 2024
4. Heard learned Brief Holder for the
State/appellant on the application for 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 11.08.2023 passed by
Learned Addl. Session Judge/FTSC Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar in Session Trial No.46 of 2020
'State Vs. Balkaran Singh', whereby the said court
has acquitted the respondent-accused of the charges
of offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 376 and
511 IPC.
6. The facts in nutshell are that the accused
and the victim were known to each other and they
had friendship since the year 2012. The accused used
to put forth proposal of establishing physical relations
and also used to touch the private parts, breast and
hips. The victim used to ignore all the activities of
accused. In the month of October, 2016 the accused
had taken the victim to Nainital and there also the
accused asked the victim to establish the physical
relations. Even on the resistance shown by the victim
the accused try to commit rape upon the victim, but
on her serious resistance somehow the victim could
be saved. On the basis of these averments the FIR
was lodged at Police Station, Nanakmatta, District
Udham Singh Nagar by the victim on 24.12.2017,
which was registered at 20:20 hours. The I.O. has
submitted charge sheet against the accused in the
Court under Sections 354-A, 376 R/w Section 511 of
IPC; charges were accordingly framed against the
accused by the Trial Court. As many as six witnesses,
namely, PW1 victim, PW2 sister of the victim, PW3
mother of the victim, PW4 father of the victim, PW5
S.I. Santoshi Negi & PW6 S.I. Mahendra Singh Negi
were examined on 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 reasons for recording the finding of
acquittal by the Trial Court are that in the evidence of
victim no date, month, year or place of occurrence
has been mentioned.
8. Moreover, there is a delay of more than two
years in lodging the First Information report. PW2
sister of the victim did not make any such submission
that on which date, month or year, the victim
informed her about occurrence. Had there been any
such discloser by the victim to PW-2, the same must
have been deposed by her in her statement. Hence
the prosecution could not get any benefit from the
evidence of PW2. This witness has stated in her
statement that the accused had taken the victim to
Nainital on 28.10.2016 in a hotel and that she along
with her sister, her brother and accused stayed
together in a common room. Had there been any
such commission of crime by the accused, the victim
must have stated this fact to her sibling, but she did
not. The sister of victim has also not made any such
deposition that she was informed about any such
occurrence taken place in the hotel. Even the victim
could have informed the staff of the hotel about such
occurrence, but she did not.
9. Although, the occurrence is stated to have
taken place in the year 2012 and the FIR was lodged
on 24.12.2017 but there is no plausible and
reasonable justification given for such a long delay.
The Trial Court also recorded the finding that the
incident had allegedly taken place in a hotel located
at Nainital, however the trial continued at District
Udham Singh Nagar and thus the question of
territorial jurisdiction was not considered by the I.O.
while submission of charge sheet.
10. For these reasons the trial court came to
the conclusion that the prosecution utterly failed to
prove its case against the respondent-accused
beyond reasonable about.
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 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. The acquittal further fortifies
the innocence of the accused and therefore Courts
should be slow in interfering in the finding of
acquittal.
13. 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.80 of 2024
14. 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
