Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Arvind on 13 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
13th MARCH, 2024
GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. 62 OF 2014
State of Uttarakhand.
...Appellant
Versus
Arvind.
...Respondent
Counsel for the appellant/ State of : Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Government
Uttarakhand. Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand.
Counsel for the respondent. : Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel
holding brief of Mr. Lokendra Dobhal,
learned counsel.
JUDGMENT :
(per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)
The State has come up in appeal against the
judgment passed by the Court of Fourth Additional
Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 322/2013
(Old Number) 20757/2013 (New Number) dated
29.11.2013, whereby the respondent-Arvind, son of
Ram Kishore has been acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 376 & 506 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on
05.07.2013, a complaint was made by Parasram, S/o
Harkesh Singh, who got the complaint written through
Begram Singh Chauhan, S/o Dhyan Singh, R/o Jwalapur,
Mohalla Dheerawali, Near Bhairo Mandir, Haridwar. As
per the complainant, his daughter, aged 18-19 years,
works in Bioment Sidcul Company, and on 05.07.2013,
she came home crying at about 09:00 clock, and told
him that one boy working in her company, whose name
is Arvind, S/o Ram Kishore, was bothering her since a
long time. Today, when she got down from a tempo
near Dheerwali Barrier, he said he will drop her, and
they will go from a shortcut. Thereafter, he took her
near a lonely place, and misbehaved with her. She
shouted that you should not behave like this, and,
thereafter, he committed rape with her, and he left her
there and went away. Before going, he told her that she
should not share this incident with anybody, or else she
will be killed. The complainant went with his daughter
to the Thana and sought investigation against the
above-said person, i.e. Arvind.
3. After the complaint was written, the
Investigating Officer-SI Omkant Bhushan started
investigation, after taking due permission from his Police
Station, and he took one female Sub-Inspector Janki
Bhandari on the site, where the incident took place.
Being the time of night, the victim could not tell the
right place of incident at night. After going home, the
victim sent the salwaar, which she was wearing at the
time of the incident, to the lady Sub-Inspector Janki
Bhandari. On 06.07.2013, the statement of the victim
was recorded, and the place of incident was identified.
On 08.07.2013, after again going to the place of
incident, enquiry was done from the persons staying
around that area. Thereafter, the statement of the
victim was recorded under Section 164 IPC. Thereafter,
the investigation was done in the office of Bioment
Sidcul Company to see the Attendance Register, which
showed that on 05.07.2013, the accused had come to
the office, and after that he never came back to the
office. On 09.07.2013, permission was taken from the
Court to verify the age of the victim. In the Bioment
Sidcul Company, statement of Rahul Singh was
recorded. Statement of Naval Singh of Village Hetampur
was also recorded. On 10.07.2013, statement of the
mother of the victim was also recorded. On 11.07.2013,
report, with respect to the age of the victim, was
received. On 14.07.2013, the accused was arrested.
4. After completing the investigation, on
23.09.2013, a Challan was presented, and thereafter on
28.10.2013, charges under Sections 376 & 506 IPC were
framed against the accused. The prosecution examined
the following witnesses :
P.W.-1 Parasram, the complainant.
P.W.-2 Victim.
P.W.-3 Head Constable Karam Singh.
P.W.-4 Dr. Alpana Khare.
P.W.-5 Rahul Singh.
P.W.-6 Head Constable No. 98 Pushkar Singh.
P.W.-7 Sub-Inspector Janki Bhandari
P.W.-8 Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector
Omkant Bhushan
5. On 18.11.2013, statement of the accused,
under Section 313 IPC, was recorded, in which he stated
that a false FIR has been registered against him, and
false allegations have been levelled against him. The
accused examined the following witnesses :
D.W.-1 Arvind
D.W.-2 Mahipal Singh
D.W.-3 Meenakshi
6. After going through the entire evidence, and
arguments of the parties, the lower Court has acquitted
the accused.
7. As per the evidence given by the accused-
D.W.-1, he loved the victim, and he wanted to marry
her, but the victim's sister-Meenakshi, and the family
members did not agree to this relationship. As per the
prosecution, the accused had taken the victim from
Barrier No. 5 on the pretext that will take a shortcut
route and drop the victim, which will save time. At
Barrier No. 5, it is a crowded area and CISF personnel
were deployed there. The defence witness Mahipal
Singh-D.W.-2 was on duty at Barrier No. 5 on
05.07.2013 from 01:00 P.M. to 09:00 P.M. This fact is
established by the evidence of Mahipal Singh-D.W.-2.
8. Sub-Inspector Omkant Bhushan-P.W.-8 has
given the same evidence that Barrier No. 5 is a busy
area, and both these witnesses did not state that any
boy had forcibly taken any girl into the bushes, and that
the girl was trying to save herself, or any noise was
made. There are shops around, and they remain open
till 11:00 P.M. The prosecution witness Rahul Singh-
P.W.-5 has stated that, on the day of the incident, the
victim, her sister-Meenakshi, and the accused had come
to work in the company. As per the evidence given by
this witness, all three of them, i.e. the victim, the
accused and the victim's sister-Meenakshi, were working
in the same factory, and keeping in view the statement
given by this employee of the company, the evidence
given by the defence witness Meenakshi-D.W.-3 that she
did not know Arvind (accused), and whether Arvind
works in the said factory, did not reflect truth.
9. Finally, while referring to the evidence given
by the victim, the Lower Court observed that, as per the
evidence given by the victim, on the date of the
incident, she, her sister-Meenakshi, and the accused had
come to work, and after leaving from work, all three of
them were sitting in the same auto-rickshaw.
10. Finally, while acquitting the accused, the
Lower Court held that, neither the prosecution had been
able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
committed rape with the victim on the date of the
alleged incident, nor was the semen sample of the
accused matched with the semen found on the salwaar
of the victim. Even if it is presumed for some time that
mutual physical intercourse took place between the
accused and the victim on the day of the incident, even
then the victim was a consenting party, and the accused
was acquitted in this background.
11. Counsel for the State has not been able to
show any evidence led by the prosecution, which would
go to show that the victim and the accused were not
known to each other, rather a contradiction in the
statement made by the sister of the accused Meenakshi-
D.W.-3 makes it more clear that on the day of the
incident all three of them had gone to the office, as per
the version given by the employee from the company
Rahul Singh-P.W.-5. Hence, on the date of the incident,
all three of them had gone to the office, and they were
known to each other, coupled with the fact that Arvind
(accused) had taken the victim from Barrier No. 5, which
was a very busy area, the allegations of dragging and
shouting of victim was held to be not possible. This
finding of fact does not require any interference, as the
victim was a major, and even in her statement she had
admitted that she was known to Arvind (accused).
12. The present Government Appeal is,
accordingly, dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.
______________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 13th March, 2024
Rahul
