IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT, JJ.
State of Uttarakhand - Applicant
Versus
Seema and Another - Respondents
Special Leave Application (SPLA) No. 214 of 2024 In Government Appeal No. 133 of 2024
Decided On : 14-06-2024
Delay - Appeal - IPC, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act - The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence and lack of support from the victims.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused were running a sex racket and had trafficked women. However, during the trial, only one victim testified and did not support the prosecution's claims, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as the key witness did not corroborate the allegations.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this instance, the lack of supporting testimony from the victims led to the acquittal.
Result: The application for leave to appeal is rejected and the government appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Purohit, J.
Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024)
Heard learned counsel for the parties on Delay Condonation Application.
2. As per office report, there is a delay of 72 days in filing the Government Appeal against the impugned judgment and order. Since, the reasons given by the State in the Delay Condonation Application supported by the affidavit, are sufficient and well explained, therefore, the delay in filing the government appeal is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024) made therefor is allowed.
Special Leave to Appeal No.214 of 2014
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on Leave to Appeal Application.
4. This leave to appeal has been preferred by the State/ appellant against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2023 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.77 of 2019 State Vs. Seema and Another, whereby, the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them under Sections 370(1)(2), 354, 342 IPC and Section 4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
5. It is the case of the prosecution in short that Anti Human Trafficking Cell, Haridwar got certain information on 29.09.2014 that the respondent/accused Seema has rented an accommodation in Tehri Visthapit Colony, Ranipur, Haridwar, where, she was running a sex racket business with co-accused Shahnawaz (who died during trial). At this information, Inspector Vijay Chandra Singh Gusain along with police party went to the house in-question and knocked the door at around 04:00 PM; after some time, one woman and a man came out in objectionable position. In the other room, 04 women/victims were found sitting in a corner; on being questioned, the woman told her name as Seema w/o Bablu @ Ramesh Jaat, R/o Shagna Police Station Purkaji, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh and the person found in objectionable condition revealed his name as Satish, S/o Shivcharan, R/o Ramdham Colony Mahdood Thana Ranipur Haridwar. On being searched from the left pocket of trousers, two condoms of masti brand were recovered and a Samsung mobile black Reliance Sim No. 9358797670 and two notes of 100 Rs. were recovered. The another person, who revealed his name Shahnawaz (deceased), was also searched and on being searched, a Samsung Duo black colored mobile Sim No.8495419671 from left pocket of trouser and another Carbon A-51 mobile Sim No.8006306994 from another pocket, were recovered and from the back pocket of trouser, three notes of Rs.100/- and visiting card were also found from the black vallet. The recovered mobiles were sealed and the vallet and notes were sealed in a white cloth and fard was prepared. In another room, four women were found and on being asked one-by one, they told their name and address. One gave her name as Lovely D/o Aino Sheikh, R/o Gali No.2, Simb Nagar, Indira Camp, Maharani Bag, Delhi and told that Shanawaz had brought her from Delhi on the pretext of getting work in Haridwar and pushed her into this prostitution business by threatening and committing maarpeet. She told that she is originally from Calcutta; she was kept hostage and not allowed to go anywhere; she did not want to stay there and asked the police to save her; on being searched, a mobile phone was recovered from her possession. The second victim gave her name as Chinki d/o Harish Chand, R/o Sarafa Bazar, Thana Kotwali Muzaffarnagar; she told that Shahnawaz brought her to Seema on the pretext of job and pushed her to prostitution business; she also informed the police that the respondents/accused persons also charged thousands of money for introducing them to the customers; on being searched, a mobile phone and one white lady’s bag was recovered from her. The third victim told her name Farhana D/o Mohd. Hanif, R/o Sarvat Peeth, Thana Kotwali Muzaffarnagar and the fourth victim told her name as Sonia @ Annu D/o Subhash Kashyap, R/o Shakumbhari Vihar, Thana Kotwali Dehat Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. They
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and lack of corroborative evidence from victims can lead to acquittal.
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 remains paramount, and the prosecution must provide credible evidence to support charges, which was lacking in this case.
The court reaffirmed that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a clear and conclusive chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence requires that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction.
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.
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.
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.
In cases of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused, and the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons t....
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.