State Of Uttarakhand vs Parvash
2024 Latest Caselaw 1091 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

State Of Uttarakhand vs Parvash on 5 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.187 of 2024

                                  With

              Government Appeal No.117 of 2024

                          05TH June, 2024

State of Uttarakhand                                    ...... Appellant

                                   Vs.

Parvash                                               ...... 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 128 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.187 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 25.09.2023 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC, Haridwar in Session Trial No.76 of 2023 'State Vs. Parvash', whereby the said court has acquitted the respondent- accused for the charge of offence punishable under Sections 366 & 376 of I.P.C.

6. In short, the facts of the case are that on the basis of a report lodged by the applicant/informant (Exhibit P-2), the daughter of the applicant/informant was missing since 06.06.2020 in the night hours at 11-12 O'clock. The applicant/informant and his family searched for his daughter and while doing so, when they reached near Taj Brick Field, the voice of a girl was heard. On 07.06.2020 at about 03:00 A.M., the daughter of applicant/informant was brought from the possession of the respondent-accused in a shattered condition. On being inquired, the daughter of the applicant/informant informed that the respondent- accused had enticed her away on the pretext of doing Nikah and in a Madarsa, he committed rape upon her and did not solemnize Nikah. The matter was

investigated, charges were framed against the respondent-accused as many as 07 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Statement of respondent-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. thereafter. The Trial Court by way of the impugned judgment and order has passed the order of acquittal, hence, this appeal filed by the State along with an application for leave to appeal.

7. In this matter before the Trial Court PW1 victim, PW2 informant/father of the victim, PW4 Anish and PW5 Naushad did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the trial court. PW1 the victim was the main and important witness of the case, who clearly denied the prosecution story. Thus, from the evidence of the victim and other prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the respondent-accused did not commit rape upon her. Even in the court, the victim clearly stated that she does not know the respondent-accused and he did not commit rape upon her on the pretext of marrying her. PW3 Dr. Alpana Khare, who medically examined the victim has clearly stated in her statement that the victim had refused for her internal examination due to which, she did not take the swab sample of the victim.

8. The Trial Court considering the aforesaid facts and relying upon various authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court has recorded the finding of acquittal, which in our view, do not warrant any

interference by this Court. It is well settled proposition of law that where two views are possible and one view taken by the trial court is also worthy acceptance, in that situation the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the findings of acquittal, unless and until there are substantial and compelling reasons.

9. 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.117 of 2024

10. Since we have refused to grant leave to appeal to the State against the impugned judgment, the Government Appeal is also dismissed.

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

Dated: 5th June, 2024 Akash