IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence and timely reporting in sexual assault cases, reinforcing the principle of presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024)

As per office report, there is a delay of 161 days in filing this Appeal against the impugned judgment and order. On being satisfied with the reasons given in Delay Condonation Application, the delay is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024) is accordingly allowed.

Special Leave to Appeal No.273 of 2024

2. The State has preferred this application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.S.C., Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No.264 of 2019 State Vs. Jaspal Singh, whereby, the said Court has acquitted the respondent-accused for the charge of offence punishable under Sections 376, 323, 504 IPC.

3. The facts in nutshell are that respondent/accused and victim were having love affairs. The accused tendered the proposal of marriage to the victim, on the pretext of which, he took her to his residence. There were establishment of physical relations between the duo for 3 to 4 years. However, the accused did not marry the victim, and, then, he caused hurt to the victim by committing maarpeet with her and also abused her. To this effect, the FIR was lodged by the victim on 12.10.2019 at police station Nanakmatta.

4. Necessary formalities were completed. Total 4 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Thereafter, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he stated that there was an agreement between him and the victim of marriage. When, he went to call the victim, she committed maarpeet with him and married somewhere else. It was also stated by him that he is innocent and falsely implicated.

5. The trial court at the end of trial accordingly recorded the findings of acquittal in favour of the respondent-accused. Hence, this appeal is filed by the State.

6. In this matter, 4 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW-2 is the doctor who conducted the medical examination, whereas PW-4 is Investigating Officer of the case, both these are the witnesses of formal in nature. Pw-3 is the brother of victim, who in is evidence, did not support the prosecution story. PW-1 is the victim herself.

7. It is an admitted case that there were physical relations established between the victim and the respondent-accused, as stated by the victim herself in her statement right from Section 164 Cr.P.C., which continued for about 7 years.

8. Learned trial court in view of this admission, disbelieved the allegation leveled by the victim against the accused that the accused established physical relations with her forcibly. The learned trial court also recorded a finding that it cannot be believed that the accused would continue establishing relations on the pretext of marriage for as long as 7 years. Had there been forcible establishment of physical relations by the accused with the victim, she must have mentioned this fact in her earlier statements, which she did not. Moreover, she would not have waited for as long as 7 years in lodging the report against the accused. Further, no plausible explanation was given on behalf of prosecution in lodging the report with delay. Hence, on all these grounds, the trial court came to the conclusion that the allegation leveled by the victim against the accused of establishing physical relations forcibly with her on the pretext of marrying, are not proved.

9. The trial court also reached to the conclusion that the charge of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC against the accused is also not proved in view of the fact that had the accused caused any harm to the victim or had committed any maarpeet with her, she must have mentioned about this fact in her previous statement. Similarly, the allegation of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, which is punishable under Section 504 IPC, is also not made out against the accused. The victim never stated this fact in her previous statement recorded