Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 836

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, RAKESH KAINTHLA, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Varinder Soran - Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2014
Decided on : 03-01-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. Kishore Pundeer, Advocate

The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds that the only conclusion possible from the evidence is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376, 377, 506, and 417 - Appeal against acquittal - The State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent for serious offences, arguing that the trial court's findings were perverse and based solely on the delay in lodging the FIR. (Paras 1, 8, 12)

(B) Principles of Appellate Jurisdiction - The appellate court has the power to review and reappreciate evidence in acquittal appeals, but must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless they are perverse or based on misreading evidence. (Paras 12, 14)

(C) Delay in Reporting - The court noted the significant delay in reporting the incident and the lack of corroborative evidence, which contributed to the trial court's decision to acquit. (Paras 16, 18)

Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix alleged that the respondent forcibly committed carnal intercourse with her on 14.04.2013, but did not report the incident until 18.04.2013. The trial court acquitted the respondent, leading to the State's appeal.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's findings were based on a correct appreciation of evidence, including the absence of injury marks and the delay in reporting.

Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court's acquittal was justified and whether the delay in lodging the FIR affected the prosecution's case.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court reiterated that it cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds that the only conclusion possible from the evidence was guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 377, 506 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘IPC’), the State has filed the instant appeal.

2. The prosecution story, in a brief, is that on 18.04.2013, ASI Madan Lal (PW-20), Incharge, Police Post, City, Una, along with other police officials, was on patrol duty near Government School, Galua (Una). At around, 4.20 p.m., the prosecutrix along with her husband met the police party and prosecutrix got her statement Ext. PW1/A recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in the presence of Lady Constable Jeewan Jyoti. The prosecutrix stated that her marriage had been conducted with one Mukesh in the year 2004 and two children were born out of the wedlock. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were suffering from leprosy and therefore, they were residing in “Kushth Ashram”, Una where she along with her husband and children was residing in a “Jhuggi” (thatched shed). Her husband was labourer by profession and in the day time, she along with her children remained in the “Kushth Ashram” for serving her in-laws. In the “Kushth Ashram”, there was a lady by the name of Sucheta, who was known to the prosecutrix for the last 5-6 yeas and her brother Varinder Soran i.e. the respondent herein had been working in the factory at Mehatpur and was a frequent visitor to the “Kushth Ashram”.

3. On 14.04.2013, there was a “Baishakhi” fair in the “Kushth Ashram” and the prosecutrix along with her husband remained in the “Kushth Ashram” upto 6.30 p.m. At around 6.30 p.m., her husband dropped her along with her children in the “Jhuggi” and thereafter came back to “Ashram”. At around 9.00 p.m., the respondent came to her “Jhuggi” and disclosed that her husband was lying near Railway Station, Una, under the influence of liquor and asked her to accompany him in order to bring him back. She took her daughter with her as her son was with her father-in-law and mother-in-law in the “Kushth Ashram”. The respondent took her to the Railway Station but her husband was not found there and accordingly the respondent then took her to the Bus-stand, Una, but, again husband of the prosecutrix was also not there. The respondent disclosed that perhaps prosecutrix’s husband had gone with Monu to “Jhuggi” and thereafter the respondent took her to the Railway Station side and forcibly took her towards the bushes along with her daughter and put her on the ground and forcibly put off her slacks upto her knees and committed carnal intercourse with her forcibly and on her objection, he threatened to kill her in case she raised alarm. The respondent also gagged her mouth. Due to fear of the respondent, she (prosecutrix) did not report the matter to anybody and because she was feeling pain in her anus, therefore, she narrated the entire incident to her husband. She requested that her medical examination be got conducted and strict action be taken against the respondent.

4. During investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the Investigating Officer (I.O.). The doctor concerned preserved vaginal swab and blood sample of the prosecutrix and handed over the same to the police and had reserved opinion till the report of the FSL. After going through the FSL report, the doctor issued the MLC Ext.PW9/C. The respondent was arrested on 18.04.2013.

5. After completion of the investigation, the respondent was charged with the aforesaid sections to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and on closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the prosecution case in toto and pleaded his innocence. As per statement of the respondent recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the husband of the prosecutrix had taken money from him but had not