IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that acquittal should stand if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the victim's own testimony undermines the allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

Delay condonation application (IA No.1 of 2024).

1. Heard learned Brief Holder for the State on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. As per the Office Report, there is a delay of 81 days in filing this appeal.

3. In view of reasons, pressed in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the delay is condoned. Delay condonation application stands allowed, accordingly.

Special Leave to Appeal No.134 of 2024

4. Heard learned Brief Holder for the State/appellant on the application for special leave to appeal.

5. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure along with application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2023 passed by Learned Addl. Session Judge/FTSC Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Session Trial No.186 of 2019 State Vs. Surjan Singh, whereby the said court has acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge of offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 IPC.

6. The facts in nutshell are that on the basis of a report given by the victim on 19.03.2018 at Police Station Nanakmatta, the case was registered against the respondent-accused on the said date at 09:30 PM. The allegations in the FIR were that the victim and the respondent-accused were in love affairs with each other since 2008 and the respondent-accused on the pretext of marring the victim, kept on establishing physical relations with her continuously for six years. The accused, however, did not stick to his promise and rather he married with some other girl in the year 2017. In the year 2015, when the father of victim had a talk with the family of accused, the accused gave a threat of life to the victim. The charge was accordingly framed against the respondent-accused. Total eight witnesses, namely, PW1 victim, PW2 Father of the victim, PW3 mother of the victim, PW4 sister of the victim, PW5 brother of the victim, PW6 SI Santosh Negi, PW7 Dr. Abhilasha Pandey and PW8 SI Ganesh Dutt Bhatt were examined on the behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court by way of impugned judgment and order has passed the order of acquittal, hence, this appeal by the State.

7. The grounds of acquittal as recorded by the trial court is that the victim herself stated in her statement before the trial court that she had love affair with the respondent-accused for six years, when the accused established physical relation with her for the first time, he did so on the pretext of marring her. In cross examination she has stated that even after the marriage of respondent-accused, she used to meet with respondent-accused and then also physical relations were developed between them for two and three times. The Trial Court has recorded the finding that the victim is an educated lady and matured one, however, establishment of physical relations with her by the respondent-accused continuously for six years goes to show that the physical relations were not established merely on the pretext of marriage else no lady would have permitted developing physical relations on the mere promise of marriage.

8. In the cross examination she also admitted that she had earlier moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was rejected. However, the case was registered as complaint case wherein the victim in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., has admitted that the accused did not establish relations with her on the pretext of marriage.

9. The Trial Court has also recorded the finding that the victim could have moved an application before the competent court against the order of rejection of her application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which she did not.

10. The victim and the accused were related to each other and as per the evidence of victim, she had love affair with the accused and as per statement of PW-2, parents of accused were not ready for marriage with victim