Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand vs Ravindra And Others on 13 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ALOK KUMAR VERMA
13th MARCH, 2024
GOVERNMENT APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2014
State of Uttarakhand ...... Appellant
Vs.
Ravindra and Others ......Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy
Advocate General.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
made the following judgment :
(Per : Shri Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
This Government Appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 24.09.2013, passed by learned Ist
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District
Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2012, "State vs.
Ravindra and three Others", whereby, the respondent-
accused Ravindra has been acquitted of the charge
punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, "IPC"), and, the
respondents Surendra, Rajendra and Rajnish have been
acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 323, 504
and Section 506 IPC.
2
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as it emerges
from the evidence on record is that the victim's father
(PW1) gave a written information (Ext. Ka. 1) dated
07.09.2011 to the police station to the effect that today
around 5:30 p.m., when his daughter (PW6) was going to
defecate, the accused-Ravindra pulled her into a sugarcane
field at a knife-point, broke her nada and tried to rape her.
When the victim made noise the informant's wife (PW2),
who was cutting grass nereby, cousin sister of the victim
(PW4), his son (PW9) reached the spot. When an attempt
was made to apprehend the accused- Ravindra, he
assaulted the prosecution witness PW3 with a knife and ran
away from the spot. His daughter informed him about this
incident. He, his family members and villagers went to
Surendra's house. He complained about Surendra's son
Ravindra. On this, Surendra, Rajendra and Rajneesh beat
him. They threatened to kill him if he reported the incident
to the police.
3. An FIR No. 224 of 2011 (Ext. Ka.2) was lodged
with police station Gangnahar, District Haridwar on
08.09.2011 at 16:05 hrs pursuant to the written
information (Ext.Ka.1). The said written information was
written by the prosecution witness PW8 on the informant's
behest, on which the informant (PW1) had put his
signature. The FIR was registered by Constable Gambhir
3
Singh Rawat (PW5). Dr. Swati Murari (PW10) examined the
injuries of the victim and the witness PW3 on 07.09.2011
Sub-Inspector Darshan Prasad (PW7) took up investigation.
He recorded statements of the witnesses. Site plan (Ext. Ka.
4) was prepared by him. On completion of the investigation,
a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.7) was submitted by him.
4. The Trial Court framed charges against the
respondents-accused. As the accused persons pleaded
innocence, trial was held.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused
persons, the prosecution examined as many as ten
witnesses.
6. Statements of the respondents-accused were
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating
evidence, produced by the prosecution.
7. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General,
contended that the victim (PW6) and the injured (PW3)
have supported the prosecution's case. The evidence
adduced on behalf of the prosecution is trustworthy. The
guilt of the respondents is fully proved, therefore, the
judgment of acquittal is not justify in the eye of law.
8. The law is well settled that the order of acquittal
strengthens the presumption of the innocence of the
4
accused. Equally, it is the duty of the Court to see that the
guilty person does not escape from the punishment.
Therefore, we have carefully assessed the evidence,
produced by the prosecution.
9. PW1 (informant) is the father of the alleged
victim. He was not present at the spot when the incident
happened with his daughter. According to his written
information (Ext. Ka.1), his wife was cutting grass near the
incident place, but, his wife (PW2) has not supported the
allegations of the FIR.
10. PW2 stated that she had not gone to cut the
grass and had not witnessed any such incident.
11. According to the FIR, when an attempt was made
to apprehend the respondent-accused Ravindra, he had
stabbed the prosecution witness PW3. But, while not
supporting the prosecution's case, the prosecution witness
(PW3) stated that Ravindra had not caused him any injury
with the knife.
12. The prosecution witness PW4 is the victim's
cousin. This witness has stated that she was present at the
spot at the time of the incident. She further stated that the
accused Ravindra had injured his brother PW3 with a knife
but neither the evidence of PW3 nor the statement of the
victim herself corroborates the statement of this witness.
5
13. PW6, the victim has not adduced any such
evidence that the respondent-accused Ravindra had
stabbed PW3 with a knife at the time of the alleged incident.
14. The victim (PW6) stated that she was around 20
years old at the time of the incident. She has stated that at
the time of the incident, her aunt's son (PW9) had saved
him from the accused Ravindra, but, the prosecution
witness PW9 has not supported her statement. The
prosecution witness PW9 has stated that he has no
knowledge of the incident.
15. The prosecution witness PW4 has stated that her
uncle (PW1) was assaulted by the accused persons, but, she
was not present at the spot. According to PW1, the accused
persons had beaten him and injured him, but his medical
report has not been filed by the prosecution.
16. Having thus scrutinized the evidence on record,
we are of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere
with the findings of acquittal, recorded by the trial court.
There is no positive and conclusive evidence placed on
record against the respondents by the prosecution to prove
its case that the respondents were guilty of committing the
alleged offence.
17. As a result, the appeal has no merit. The appeal
is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the present Government
6
Appeal is dismissed. Respondents are on bail. Their bail
bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
________________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dated: 13.03.2024
JKJ/Pant
