SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sunil Kumar - Petitioner 
Versus 
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 582 of 2010
Decided On : 08-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the absence of corroborative evidence undermines the victim's testimony.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 366 - Conviction and sentencing of the accused for kidnapping with intent to marry - The appellant was convicted and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- by the Trial Court - The victim's testimony was found unsatisfactory and uncorroborated by independent witnesses, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case. (Paras 6, 21, 22)

(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt - The absence of corroborative evidence and inherent improbabilities in the victim's testimony led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. (Paras 20, 21)

(C) Appeal - The appellate court's role is to assess the correctness of the lower court's decision, particularly regarding the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. (Paras 8, 21)

Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for allegedly kidnapping a minor victim with the intent to marry her. The victim claimed she was forcibly taken, but her testimony lacked corroboration and was contradicted by other witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The court found the victim's testimony unreliable and noted the absence of evidence supporting the prosecution's claims.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony and whether the prosecution had proven the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt due to the lack of corroborative evidence and inherent improbabilities in the victim's account.

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2010 and order of sentence dated 01.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 30 days for the commission of aforesaid offence. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of the IPC. It was asserted that the victim (name withheld to protect her identity) had gone to graze her sheep on 24.03.2009. She was going to the house of her maternal aunt when she met the accused, who was unknown to her. The accused caught hold of the victim and took her to his room. He told her that he wanted to marry her and kept her in the room. He went to his job in the morning, and the victim escaped from the room. Her uncle met her on the way. The victim went to her home. The matter was reported to the police and F.I.R. (Ext.PW-1/A) was registered at the Police Station. SI Ram Nath (PW-14) conducted the investigation. He filed an application (Ext.PW-14/A) for the medical examination of the victim. Doctor Anuradha Mahajan (PW-15) conducted medical examination of the victim and found that the victim had not sustained any injury. There was nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse had taken place. She issued MLC (Ext.PW-15/A) and preserved the clothes and samples of the victim. She handed them over to the police official accompanying the victim. Ram Nath (PW-14) arrested the accused. He made an application (Ext PW 14/B) for conducting the medical examination of the accused. Doctor Vivek Kaushal (PW-10) conducted the medical examination of the accused and found that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. He preserved the sample and underwear of the accused. He issued an MLC (Ext.PW-10/A) and handed over the sample to the police official accompanying the accused. SI Ram Nath (PW-14) went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-14/C). He seized the bed sheet from the house of the accused vide memo (Ext.PW- 3/A). He put the bed sheet in a parcel, and sealed the parcel with five impressions of seal ‘D’. The seal impression (Ext.PW3/B) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. Age certificates of the victim (Ext. PW-7/A and Ext.PW-7/B) were obtained from the school authorities by filing an application, (Ext.PW-14/D). SI Ram Nath (PW-14) filed an application (Ext.PW-14/E) for obtaining the birth certificate of the victim. Certificates (Ext.PW-6/A and Ext.PW-6/B), and a copy of the extract of the Pariwar Register (Ext.PW-6/C) were obtained. The samples were sent to SFSL, Junga, for analysis, and the result (Ext.PX) was issued showing that no blood and semen were detected in the bed sheet, salwar, shirt, vaginal swab and pubic hair of the victim. Human blood was found on the pubic hair and underwear of the accused. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, who committed it for trial to the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P. Learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, assigned it to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba (learned Trial Court).

3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top