IMPORTANT POINT
The principle that acquittal should be upheld unless compelling reasons exist to overturn it, reflecting the presumption of innocence.

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 152 days in filing this appeal.

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

Special Leave to Appeal No.133 of 2024

4. Heard learned Brief Holder for the State/appellant on the application for 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 11.08.2023 passed by Learned Addl. Session Judge/FTSC Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Session Trial No.46 of 2020 ‘State Vs. Balkaran Singh’, whereby the said court has acquitted the respondent-accused of the charges of offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 376 and 511 IPC.

6. The facts in nutshell are that the accused and the victim were known to each other and they had friendship since the year 2012. The accused used to put forth proposal of establishing physical relations and also used to touch the private parts, breast and hips. The victim used to ignore all the activities of accused. In the month of October, 2016 the accused had taken the victim to Nainital and there also the accused asked the victim to establish the physical relations. Even on the resistance shown by the victim the accused try to commit rape upon the victim, but on her serious resistance somehow the victim could be saved. On the basis of these averments the FIR was lodged at Police Station, Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar by the victim on 24.12.2017, which was registered at 20:20 hours. The I.O. has submitted charge sheet against the accused in the Court under Sections 354-A, 376 R/w Section 511 of IPC; charges were accordingly framed against the accused by the Trial Court. As many as six witnesses, namely, PW1 victim, PW2 sister of the victim, PW3 mother of the victim, PW4 father of the victim, PW5 S.I. Santoshi Negi & PW6 S.I. Mahendra Singh Negi were examined on 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 reasons for recording the finding of acquittal by the Trial Court are that in the evidence of victim no date, month, year or place of occurrence has been mentioned.

8. Moreover, there is a delay of more than two years in lodging the First Information report. PW2 sister of the victim did not make any such submission that on which date, month or year, the victim informed her about occurrence. Had there been any such discloser by the victim to PW-2, the same must have been deposed by her in her statement. Hence the prosecution could not get any benefit from the evidence of PW2. This witness has stated in her statement that the accused had taken the victim to Nainital on 28.10.2016 in a hotel and that she along with her sister, her brother and accused stayed together in a common room. Had there been any such commission of crime by the accused, the victim must have stated this fact to her sibling, but she did not. The sister of victim has also not made any such deposition that she was informed about any such occurrence taken place in the hotel. Even the victim could have informed the staff of the hotel about such occurrence, but she did not.

9. Although, the occurrence is stated to have taken place in the year 2012 and the FIR was lodged on 24.12.2017 but there is no plausible and reasonable justification given for such a long delay. The Trial Court also recorded the finding that the incident had allegedly taken place in a hotel located at Nainital, however the trial continued at District Udham Singh Nagar and thus the question