IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT, JJ.
State of Uttarakhand - Appellant
Versus
Parvash - Respondent
Special Leave to Appeal No. 187 of 2024 With Government Appeal No.117 of 2024
Decided On : 05-06-2024
Appeal - Acquittal - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 378(3) - The court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the importance of witness credibility and the principle that appellate courts should be cautious in overturning acquittals without compelling reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The informant reported his daughter missing, claiming she was enticed by the respondent-accused who allegedly raped her. The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of credible evidence, as key witnesses, including the victim, did not support the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's acquittal was justified based on the victim's testimony and the lack of supporting evidence from other witnesses, indicating that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondent-accused was justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court reiterated that it should not interfere with an acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, highlighting the importance of witness credibility and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Result: The application for leave to appeal is rejected and the government appeal is dismissed.
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 128 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.187 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 25.09.2023 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC, Haridwar in Session Trial No.76 of 2023 ‘State Vs. Parvash’, whereby the said court has acquitted the respondent-accused for the charge of offence punishable under Sections 366 & 376 of I.P.C.
6. In short, the facts of the case are that on the basis of a report lodged by the applicant/informant (Exhibit P-2), the daughter of the applicant/informant was missing since 06.06.2020 in the night hours at 11-12 O’clock. The applicant/informant and his family searched for his daughter and while doing so, when they reached near Taj Brick Field, the voice of a girl was heard. On 07.06.2020 at about 03:00 A.M., the daughter of applicant/informant was brought from the possession of the respondent-accused in a shattered condition. On being inquired, the daughter of the applicant/informant informed that the respondent-accused had enticed her away on the pretext of doing Nikah and in a Madarsa, he committed rape upon her and did not solemnize Nikah. The matter was investigated, charges were framed against the respondent-accused as many as 07 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Statement of respondent-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. thereafter. The Trial Court by way of the impugned judgment and order has passed the order of acquittal, hence, this appeal filed by the State along with an application for leave to appeal.
7. In this matter before the Trial Court PW1 victim, PW2 informant/father of the victim, PW4 Anish and PW5 Naushad did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the trial court. PW1 the victim was the main and important witness of the case, who clearly denied the prosecution story. Thus, from the evidence of the victim and other prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the respondent-accused did not commit rape upon her. Even in the court, the victim clearly stated that she does not know the respondent-accused and he did not commit rape upon her on the pretext of marrying her. PW3 Dr. Alpana Khare, who medically examined the victim has clearly stated in her statement that the victim had refused for her internal examination due to which, she did not take the swab sample of the victim.
8. The Trial Court considering the aforesaid facts and relying upon various authorities of the Hon’ble Apex Court has recorded the finding of acquittal, which in our view, do not warrant any interference by this Court. It is well settled proposition of law that where two views are possible and one view taken by the trial court is also worthy acceptance, in that situation the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the findings of acquittal, unless and until there are substantial and compelling reasons.
9. In our considered view, there is no ground much less reasonable to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is liable to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.
Government Appeal No.117 of 2024
10. Since we have refused to grant leave to appeal to the State against the impugned judgment, the Government Appeal is also dismissed.
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.
The presumption of innocence remains paramount, and the prosecution must provide credible evidence to support charges, which was lacking in this case.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in sexual assault cases involving claims of consent and coercion.
The court reaffirmed that inconsistencies in a victim's testimony can lead to acquittal in rape cases if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence requires that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction.
The court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to prosecution's failure to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given inconsistencies and delay in evidence.
Point of Law : Rape case - Appeal against acquittal - Con donation of delay - Delay in filing appeal after the statutory period of limitation prescribed cannot be condoned as a matter of course.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and consistent testimony in criminal cases, and the court's reliance on the same to determine the guilt or innocence ....
The court reaffirmed that acquittal is justified when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when key witness testimony is retracted.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.