IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in sexual assault cases involving claims of consent and coercion.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on Delay Condonation Application.

2. As per office report, there is a delay of 157 days in filing the Government Appeal against the impugned judgment and order. Since, the reasons given by the applicant/State in the Delay Condonation Application supported by the affidavit, are sufficient and well explained, therefore, the delay of 157 days, in filing the government appeal, is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024) made therefor, is allowed.

Special Leave to Appeal No. 280 of 2024

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on Leave to Appeal Application.

4. This government appeal along with leave to appeal application has been preferred by the State/appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 11.10.2023 passed by learned First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2022 State Vs. Charu Chandra Joshi, whereby, the respondent-Charu Chandra Joshi has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.

5. The prosecution was set in motion on the written complaint given by the informant/victim exhibit P-1 in police station with allegations that the informant was pursuing Nursing Course from Haridwar, where she met respondent-Charu Chandra Joshi, R/o Friends Colony Do Nahariya, Haldwani through Facebook in the month of May, 2021; respondent told that he is working as a District Medical Officer, Base Hospital, Haldwani; respondent, first took the informant in his confidence and pretending love told her that he wanted to marry her. In July, 2021 when informant was going from her resident at Garur, Bageshwar to Haridwar and reached Haldwani, respondent-Charu Chandra Joshi met her in Haldwani Roadways Station and told her that he would introduce her with his mother and family members, who were agreed for their marriage. Believing the words of respondent, the informant went with him to his home, situated at Friends Colony Do Nahariya, Haldwani; about 2 p.m. she reached there, there was nobody in the house, respondent told her that the family members were gone to hospital; he prepared Maggi and gave her cold drink after which informant lost her senses and respondent forcibly made physical relation with her and made a video and threatened her if she would not meet him, video would be made viral. According to the informant, several times, she was subjected to physical relation.

6. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the respondent-accused was brought for trial by the prosecution; he denied charges and claimed trial.

7. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses, namely, PW-1 informant/victim Kalpana Bisht, PW-2 Constable C.P. 276 Jeevan Kumar, PW-3 Dr. Ritu Punetha, PW-4 S.I. Sanjay Kumar and PW-5 S.I. Babita Mehra, before the learned trial court to prove its case against the respondent/accused person and documentary evidences were also produced. The victim also deposed as P.W.1 during trial.

8. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated with the aforesaid crime.

9. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court by the impugned judgment and order has acquitted the respondent of the charges, as stated above.

10. Learned State Counsel has vehemently argued that prosecutrix/victim has supported her case during trial and this is a case where evidence of prosecution has been misread and misinterpreted, which resulted into acquittal of the respondent and miscarriage of justice.

11. Learned State Counsel took us to the judgment and order, impugned in the present Special Leave to Appeal/Government Appeal. Reasons, which has been assigned by learned trial court for recording the acquittal is quite convincing, which warrants no interference.

12. In Para 26, 27 and 28 of the judgment, it has been recorded by the lea