Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand vs Bhupal Singh on 11 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI PANKAJ PUROHIT
SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL No. 61 of 2025
With
GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. 24 of 2025
11 March, 2025
State of Uttarakhand --Appellant
Versus
Bhupal Singh --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. K. S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT:
(per Shri Pankaj Purohit, J.)
DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION
As per office report, there is a delay of 91 days in
preferring this Leave to Appeal as well Government
Appeal.
2. In view of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in
support of the application, and on being satisfied with the
same, we allow the application and condoned the delay.
SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2025
3. The present application has been moved on behalf
of the applicant/appellant assailing the judgment and
order dated 07/10.09.2024 passed by learned Special
Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Special Sessions Trial No.
07 of 2024 'State vs. Bhupal Singh', whereby the said
Court, at the conclusion of trial, has acquitted the
respondent/accused (Bhupal Singh) for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 376(3) and 3/4 of the
POCSO Act. The trial court further observed that the
charges framed against the respondent/accused for the
offences under Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST
Act also failed and he was, accordingly, acquitted.
However co-accused Deewan Ram @ Diwan Kumar, father
of the victim, was convicted and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for his natural life.
4. Facts in nut shell are that on the basis of a
complaint given by the mother of victim, wherein it was
stated by her that her daughter felt stomach ache around
Diwali festival. When she narrated this fact to her
husband, the victim was examined and it was revealed
that the respondent/accused has committed rape upon
the victim due to which she got pregnant. Accordingly, the
case was registered with Revenue Police Station. The
matter was investigated upon which, the charge-sheet
was submitted against the respondent/accused and co-
accused Deewan Ram @ Deewan Kumar, father of the
victim. As many as 14 witnesses were examined on behalf
of the prosecution, thereafter, the statement of
respondent/accused was recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. The trial court, after analyzing the oral and
documentary evidence, recorded the findings of acquittal
qua the respondent/accused and convicted the other as
stated above. Challenging the acquittal, present appeal
has been preferred by the State.
5. We have heard learned Deputy Advocate General
for the State and perused the material available in the
file.
6. The ground for acquittal of respondent/accused is
that the prosecution was based on the testimony of two
witnesses i.e. the victim and her mother. The trial court,
on the basis of evidence on record, reached to the
conclusion that the evidence led by both these two
witnesses did not inspire confidence. The trial court also
recorded the finding of fact that there were major
contradictions in the evidence of both these witnesses and
thus, there were discrepancies and inconsistencies
between two versions. Moreover D.N.A. Examination
Report of blood sample of respondent-accused was also
found negative with that of the foetus. Rather co-accused
Deewan Ram @ Deewan Kumar was found to be biological
father of the foetus.
7. There were also variations in the testimony of
victim which became one of the causes of acquittal.
Accordingly, the trial court reached to the conclusion that
the prosecution utterly failed to prove the charge of
kidnapping, rape and penetrative sexual assault upon the
victim by the respondent/accused and thus, the findings
of acquittal were recorded. We have carefully perused the
judgment and we find no ground much less reasonable to
interfere with the said judgment. The Special Leave to
Appeal Application is, accordingly, dismissed.
GOVERNMENT APPEAL NO. 24 of 2025
8. Since we have declined to grant leave, accordingly,
the Government Appeal is also dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
11.03.2025 11.03.2025
Shubham
