State Of Uttarakhand vs Ashu @ Anjani Chaturvedi
2025 Latest Caselaw 1160 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

State Of Uttarakhand vs Ashu @ Anjani Chaturvedi on 9 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                       2025:UHC:5307-DB




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
            Leave to Appeal No. 139 of 2025
                         With
           Government Appeal No. 37 of 2025

State of Uttarakhand                                    ... Applicant

                                 Versus

Ashu @ Anjani Chaturvedi                               ... Respondent

     Mr. K.S. Bora,     Deputy   Advocate   General,   for   the
     State/appellant.



                          JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application (IA/1/2025), the same is allowed. Delay of 121 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

2. By this petition under Section 419(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, State/petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.11.2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC (POCSO Act), Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 109/2022, thereby acquitting the respondent from the charges framed against him for the offences punishable under Section 376, 354D of IPC and Section 3/4 and 13/14 of POCSO Act.

2025:UHC:5307-DB

3. We have heard learned State Counsel and perused the impugned judgment and order.

4. As we gather from the impugned judgment, the case of prosecution is that the prosecutrix is a minor girl of 17 years. The accused established contact with the prosecutrix via Instagram. It is alleged that the accused initially threatened to share the chat details with her mother and subsequently took her to a flat where he allegedly committed sexual intercourse without her consent, filmed obscene contents and thereafter he allegedly used these materials to threaten and blackmail her, saying he would post them on the internet if she did not continue to submit to his demands. He allegedly also uploaded those obscene videos and photographs of prosecutrix on social sites with her own ID and mobile number. FIR with these allegations was lodged by mother of the prosecutrix on 12.7.2022 in PS Patel Nagar, Dehradun.

5. The accused took the defence that the present case is a result of a larger conspiracy hatched by the prosecutrix, who, along with certain individuals known to her, has formed a gang with the specific motive of targeting unsuspecting individuals through social media platforms and earlier also, a complaint was lodged against him in April, 2022 in PS Nehru Colony, Dehradun in which no incriminating material was found against him.

6. After considering the evidence on record, Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the

2025:UHC:5307-DB accused respondent of the charges framed against him. In doing so, Trial Court appears to have been prompted, inter alia, by following considerations:

o Prosecutrix continued to stay in contact with the accused even after the alleged initial threats.

o There was no immediate complaint made after the alleged incident of coercion or intercourse.

o Prosecution failed to produce any alleged obscene material, nor was there any expert forensic evidence or recovery of such content from any device or online platform. o No screenshots or electronic records of threats or chats were placed on record. o No evidence was produced to demonstrate that any such videos or photographs existed or were uploaded or attempted to be uploaded online.

o Prosecution relied entirely on the oral testimony of the prosecutrix without any corroboration from electronic evidence or any other supporting evidence.

o FIR in the present case lacks critical details, namely, the date, time, and year of the alleged incident. The prosecutrix made conflicting statements in her examination-in- chief and cross-examination regarding the timeline of the incident. Such contradictions go to the root of the prosecution's case. o In her statement to the Investigating Officer, prosecutrix told that the alleged incident of sexual assault took place in December 2021, while in her examination-in-chief, she stated that the alleged incident took place in November 2021.

o The prosecutrix did not mention the specific location of the alleged sexual assault. o Investigating Officer prepared a site plan on the pointing out of the prosecutrix. However, the prosecutrix categorically stated in her

2025:UHC:5307-DB deposition that she never revisited the place of occurrence after the alleged incident, thereby raising serious doubt as to how the site plan could be prepared on her pointing out.

o It has come on record that earlier also, an FIR was lodged against the same accused by the prosecutrix, but no explanation was provided by the Investigating Officer regarding the nature or outcome of that complaint, except a vague reference to a compromise.

o It is well-settled principle that when there is an existing prior complaint, the Investigating Officer is duty-bound to investigate whether there is any pattern of conduct or material overlap.

7. Thus, after appreciation of the evidence on record, Trial Court disbelieved the entire prosecution story and held that there are serious discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution story and recorded finding of acquittal.

8. We find no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. The acquittal is based on a detailed appreciation of evidence. It is well settled that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sufficient to convict an accused, provided it is of sterling quality and inspires confidence. However, in the present case, the absence of any supporting evidence -- particularly where electronic and forensic evidence could have played a crucial role -- creates reasonable doubt about the veracity of the allegations. Furthermore, the delay in lodging the FIR and continued contact between the prosecutrix and the accused undermines the prosecution's narrative of coercion and fear. The

2025:UHC:5307-DB inability to recover or even trace the alleged obscene materials further weakens the prosecution's case. In criminal jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt must always go to the accused.

9. Consequently, leave to appeal is refused. Leave petition is dismissed. Government appeal also stands dismissed accordingly.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

9.6.2025 Pr PRABODH

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF

2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3

KUMAR aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB5880 52DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.06.25 18:12:59 +05'30'