Imran vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1940 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Imran vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 August, 2025

                                                      RESERVED ORDER




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

                        AT NAINITAL

 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR

                                    AND

       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Mr. ALOK MAHRA

       BAIL APPLICATION (I.A. NO.3 OF 2023)
                                    IN
       CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 321 of 2021


Imran.                                                      ...Appellant

                                 Versus


State of Uttarakhand.                                   ...Respondent


(Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for
the appellant and Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh
Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand)



                                                Reserved on :07.08.2025
                                                Delivered on :14.08.2025



ALOK MAHRA, J.
                                ORDER

This is an Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment & order dated 31.08.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No.150 of 2019, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(n), 376(3), 452 and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 6 of POCSO Act and was awarded maximum punishment of 20 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹20,000/-. The fine was also awarded under the other sections, in which appellant was convicted. It was directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant has sought his release on bail.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that Altap (father of the victim) lodged an F.I.R. on 18.07.2019 at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, with the averments that Imran S/o Hasam, resident of his village, about 40-45 days back at night around 12:00 O'clock entered in his house and committed rape with his daughter, who is aged about 13 years and threatened her not to disclose anyone at home, due to which she did not inform at home; that 4-5 days back, in the night, Imran again came, but family members saw him and, thereafter, he fled away; that his daughter informed him about the incident, which took around 40-45 days back. He made a request to lodge a complaint and take legal action in the matter.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.-1 (victim) neither in her cross- examination nor in examination-in-chief have deposed that appellant forcefully made physical relations with her; that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that there are major contradictions between the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that at the time of alleged incident, appellant was major and prosecution have failed to produce any evidence against the appellant that he had made physical relations with

the victim forcefully except the biological evidence; that learned trial Court have committed a gross illegality by not appreciating the defence evidence and disbelieved the same; that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Admittedly, there are no ocular witnesses. The conviction is based on the strength of the statement recorded by the victim. The translated version of the cross-examination of the victim, on which heavy reliance in placed by learned counsel for the appellant, is reproduced below:-

"Stated on oath that my village is Habibpur Kurdi. I was born in Habibpur Kurdi village. There is a Government School in Habibpur Kurdi village. I studied in that school. I took admission in Class-1. When I took admission, I was 7 years old. My date of birth was written by the Teacher himself at the time of admission. I don't know how old I am now. Then said that I must be 16-17 years old. I had come with the police to give my statement before yesterday. When my first statement was recorded, I gave it on the instructions of the Police. On seeing the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim said that this is the same statement that I had given under the pressure of the Police. They had said that they would send my parents to jail. Police never took my statement. Police did not take any of my blood samples or clothes. I know Imran only because he is from the village. Imran (present in court) never came to my house. Accused-Imran (present in court) has never done anything wrong with me. I never had any relations with Imran. When I used to go to the field to collect grass, a boy did wrong thing with me. That boy was not Imran. That boy

was not from our village, so I do not know him. I did not disclose about my pregnancy to the Court yesterday due to fear of my parents. I and Imran did not enter into any agreement. I did not disclose anyone at home that an unknown boy had done something wrong with me because I was afraid of disclosing it my parents. If that boy appears in front of me, I will not be able to recognize him. On seeing the accused (present in the court), she said that he did not do anything wrong with her. It is wrong to say that I am not telling the truth in the Court today. It is wrong to state that today I am giving false statement in the Court."

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant referred to the statements of P.W.2-Altaf (father of the victim), wherein on oath he stated that he is illiterate; that his daughter (victim) is 17-18 years old; that about 5-6 months ago, Imran did not do any wrong with his daughter (victim) by entering the house at 12 o'clock in the night nor did he threaten her; that the victim did not tell him anything about this; that Imran did not come to their house again nor did his son Ishar saw him entering the house; that he did not give any application against Imran in Kotwali Laksar; that when paper number 4K/3 was read out, he said that he did not give any such application in Kotwali Laksar; that he had put his thumb impression; that he do not know what was written on the paper on which he had put his thumb impression and neither was it read out to him. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to his cross-examination, wherein, inter alia, he stated that Police Inspector did not took his statement; that when the witness was read out his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he said that he did not give any such statement and as to how the Police Inspector wrote, he cannot tell the

reason for this; that it is wrong to say that his daughter (victim) is 13 years old and not 17-18 years old; that it is correct to say that his daughter became pregnant and her operation was done in Rishikesh; that he do not know who did wrong to the victim due to which she became pregnant; that it is wrong to say that Imran of their village did wrong to his minor daughter due to which she became pregnant; that they have not reached a settlement with Imran; that it is correct to say that the actual age of his daughter (victim) is 19 years; that he did not register the age of his daughter (victim) in the school records; that victim's school master himself wrote victim's age less on his own will; that seeing the accused Imran present in the court, the witness said that he never came to our house nor did he register any case against him in any police station. Confirmed after listening.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also referred to the statement of P.W.8-S.I. Mamta Rani, wherein, inter alia, she stated that she presumed the age of the victim on the basis of T.C. of the victim of her Class-6, 7, 8 and marksheet of Class-9 and that neither she enquired about her Class-1 nor did she obtain the age certificate.

7. Learned Senior Counsel further referred to the statement of D.W.1- Sanjeev Kumar, who is In- charge Principal of Government Primary School, Habibpur, wherein, inter alia, he stated that, as per S.R. Register, victim was admitted in Class-1 on 29.08.2005 and, on S.R. No.800, victim's Transfer Certificate is

mentioned and her date of birth is mentioned as 20.02.2000.

8. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the statement of D.W.2- Anurag Dutt, Village Development Officer, Habibpur, who, in his testimony, inter alia, stated that as per the Parivar Register, the year of birth of the victim is mentioned as 2001.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that bare perusal of the aforesaid statement would itself reveal that it was not the appellant who did wrong with the victim. Learned Senior Counsel submits that at the time of alleged incident, the victim was major and learned trial Court erred in taking into account that the victim was minor at the time of incident and convicted him for the aforesaid offences.

10. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently opposed the bail application. He would submit that learned trial Court relied upon the prima facie evidence against the appellant and concluded that ingredients of the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 376(3), 452 and 506 of I.P.C. and Section 6 of POCSO Act are attracted and framed the charge accordingly. He submitted that involvement of the appellant stood revealed by the investigation and he has been convicted after trial, based on reliable and believable evidence, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.

11. This Court directed the learned Deputy Advocate General to verify the age of the victim. Today, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed a copy of the document issued by Principal, Government

Primary School, Habibpur, Laksar, Haridwar, in which the Principal has certified that, as per the Student Admission Register of Government Primary School Habibpur, Raisi, from the year 2001 to 2011 at SR No. 800, the name of the victim is mentioned and her date of birth is 20.02.2000 and her date of admission is 29.08.2005 and the date of leaving the school is 19.04.2010 and that the victim has passed Class-V.

12. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and, in particular, tone & tenor of the F.I.R. as well as the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and also considering the fact that on the date of incident, the victim was major and since the Appeal is not liable to be taken up for hearing in near future, prima facie, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed. The sentence dated 31.08.2021 stands suspended.

13. Let the appellant-Imran be released on bail during the pendency of Appeal, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned, if not required in any other case.

14. List in due course.

(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)

(ALOK MAHRA, J.) Arpan