Back
2024 Supreme(HP) 435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA, JJ.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Vikas Kumar @ Vicky and others - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 4240 of 2013
Decided on : 11-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocate
The appellate court must exercise caution in reversing acquittals, maintaining that a reasonable view by the trial court should prevail unless proven perverse.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 366, 376, 506, 342, 120B; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 3(1)(xii) - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted accused of abduction and rape, finding no conclusive evidence of forceful conduct by the accused, suggesting victim's voluntary cooperation. Court highlighted the 'double presumption' of innocence in appeal against acquittal and the burden of proof on the prosecution. Learned Trial Court's view was deemed reasonable. (Paras 13, 16, 22-23, and 40)
(B) Scope of Appeal - Appellate courts are to show restraint in reversing acquittals unless trial court's decision is perverse or unsupported by evidence. (Paras 13-14)
Facts of the case:
Following a challan under IPC and SC/ST Act, the accused were acquitted. The victim aged 18½ alleged kidnapping and rape. However, evidence indicated she accompanied accused of her own will, booking hotel rooms under her name.
Findings of Court:
The evidence reflected voluntary conduct by the victim, thus supporting the acquittal.
Issues: Whether the victim was forcibly taken or consented to accompany the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the prosecution’s evidence must be robust, ruling that a reasonable view taken by the trial court should not be interfered with lightly.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the trial court's judgment and acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of prosecution's evidence and accused's charges. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 3. accused's statements during trial. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments presented by both parties in appeal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's analysis of appeal process. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. legal parameters governing appeals against acquittal. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. discussion on proper investigation under sc & st act. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. victim's age and capacity to consent. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. victim's behavior and actions during the incident. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. victim's father's testimony and its implications. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 11. summary of court's reasoning and conclusions. (Para 36 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.07.2013, passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the charged offences. (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 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 66 , 376, 506, 342, 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 3 (1) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short SC & ST Act). It was asserted that the victim (name being withheld to protect her identity) was aged 18½ years. She had gone to get her photograph clicked on 21.10.2012, where the accused Leela Devi met her. She asked the victim to accompany her. The victim agreed. Roshan Lal accused met them in a car. Two boys were also present in the car out of whom, one was driving the car. Roshan Lal was addressing him as Ashwani. One boy, who was being called Vicky, was present in the rear seat. Leela Devi asked the victim to sit in the car and said that she was to be married to Vicky. The victim protested but she was forcibly dragged into the car and taken to Nahan. Leela Devi got down at Nahan and Roshan Lal got down at Kala Amb. Vicky took her to a room and Ashwani left with his vehicle. Vicky acted indecently with the victim and when she enquired as to why he was doing so, he replied that he had paid ₹2,000/- to Leela and he was to pay more money to her. The accused-Vicky raped her. When the victim threatened to shout, the accused threatened to kill her. The victim was dropped by Ashwani on 23.10.2012. The victim stayed with her aunt and went to her home on 24.10.2012, where she narrated the incident to her mother. The matter was reported to the Police by means of an application (Ext. PW1/A). FIR (Ext. PW24/A) was registered on the basis of the application. ASI-Gurmail (PW24) conducted the investigation. He file d an application (Ext. PW22/A) for conducting the medical examination of the victim. The victim was examined and her MLC (Ext. PW22/B) was obtained. An application (Ext. PW5/A) was filed by the Police to obtain the Birth Certificate of the victim. Heera Nand Jha (PW5) issued the birth certificate (Ext. PW5/B). The police seized the same vide memo (Ext.PW5/C). Accused Roshan Lal was arrested and he produced four currency notes of ₹500/-, which were seized vide memo (Ext. PW6/A). Accused Vicky alias Vikas was arrested on 28.10.2012. An application (Ext. PW24/B) was filed for conducting his medical examination. MLC (Ext. PW24/C) was issued. Vikas produced the bill (Ext. PW6/B) which was seized vide memo (Ext. PW6/C). Accused Vikas and the victim demarcated the place of the incident. Memo (Ext. PW1/B) and site plan (Ext. PW24/D) were prepared. Photographs (Ext. P8 to P11) were taken. The proceedings were videographed and the recording was transferred to the CD (Ext. P12). Bed Sheet (Ext. P1) was seized from the room of th
