Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand vs Harish Lal on 20 February, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:1232-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Leave Application No. 313 of 2024
In
Government Appeal No.201 of 2024
State Of Uttarakhand --Appellant
Versus
Harish Lal --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
Mr. K.S. Bora, learned D.A.G. with Mr. J.P.
Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/appellant.
Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Per: Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Special Leave to Appeal No.313 of 2024
The State has preferred this application
seeking leave to appeal against judgment and order
dated 09.04.2024 passed by learned Special
Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Special Sessions
Trial No.67 of 2023 State Vs. Harish Lal, whereby,
the said Court, at the end of trial, has acquitted the
respondent-accused for the charges punishable
under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and under Section
5(j)(ii) and 5(l) read with Section 6 of The Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that
the health of complainant's granddaughter started
2025:UHC:1232-DB
deteriorating on 08.08.2023, due to which, he took
her to Dehradun. On examination, Doctor told that
she was 14 weeks pregnant. On inquiring about it,
the girl told that one Harish Lal used to force her
into illicit relation.
3. Thereafter, the complainant registered a
complaint under the aforesaid Sections at Revenue
Outpost Kawagadi, District Uttarkashi, whereupon,
a charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating
Officer and cognizance was taken by the learned
Magistrate against the respondent-accused for the
for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n)
IPC and under Section 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) read with
Section 6 of POCSO Act and was committed for
trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case
examined as many as 11 witnesses, namely, PW-1
victim, PW-2 complainant (victim's grandfather),
PW-3 Victim's School Headmaster, PW-4 Victim's
father, PW-5 Dr. Himadri, PW-6 Revenue S.I. Rajeev
Chandra Ramola, PW-7 H.C. Yudhveer Singh, PW-8
H.C. Jaiveer Singh, PW-9 Dr. Asna Singh PW-10
Dr. Meenakshi Singh and PW-11 S.I. Sashi and
Court Witness 1-Dr. Nafees Fatima.
5. Thereafter, the statement of respondent-
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in
which, he stated that he has been falsely
implicated. However, he did not produce any
evidence in his defence. The trial court, after
2025:UHC:1232-DB
hearing the parties and on examination of evidence
led before it, proceeded to acquit the respondent-
accused, as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment.
6. We have heard learned State Counsel and
have carefully examined the judgment available on
the record. In this matter, the trial court recorded
the finding of acquittal on the ground that at the
time of medical examination, the victim was 14
weeks' pregnant, but, the victim, on her
examination and her statement given under Section
164 Cr.P.C. said that she last had sex on
22.04.2023 with the respondent-accused, but, to be
14 weeks' pregnant, she should have had sex on
01.05.2023. When she was examined on
08.08.2024, she was found with a pregnancy of 14
weeks. This fact further negates the involvement of
respondent-accused with the crime. The guilt of the
respondent-accused thus was not proved beyond all
reasonable doubt. In this circumstance, the fetus
cannot be said to be fathered by the respondent-
accused. As every single day is important in
medical science, her words even if believed to be
100% true will not show that the child she
conceived was of the respondent-accused. Thus, we
do not find any fault with the acquittal of the
respondent-accused.
7. The learned trial court also on
appreciation of documentary evidences and oral
evidences, came to the conclusion that abortion
2025:UHC:1232-DB
was not done as per the directions of Hon'ble High
Court neither the blood samples nor placenta of
fetus were preserved by the authorized Medical
Board. Thereafter, authenticity and correctness of
Forensic Science Laboratory reports were doubted
by the learned trial court.
8. On all these grounds, the learned trial
court came to the conclusion that prosecution
failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all
reasonable doubts and recorded the findings of
acquittal. On a careful perusal of the same as well
as on going through the evidence of prosecution
witnesses as discussed in the body of judgment, we
are of the considered view that there is hardly any
scope of interference in the judgment and order
passed by the learned trial court.
9. In such view of the matter, we find no
ground to grant leave to appeal to the State against
the impugned judgment and order dated
09.04.2024. As a result, application seeking leave
to appeal is dismissed.
Government Appeal No.201 of 2024
10. Since, we have declined to grant leave to
appeal to the State, accordingly, Government
Appeal No.201 of 2024 is also dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
20.02.2025
PN/-
