IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RITU BAHRI, C.J., ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
State of Uttarakhand - Appellant
Versus
Gurbinder Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Special Leave to Appeal No.45 of 2014 In Government Appeal Nos. 22, 23 of 2014
Decided On : 10-04-2024
Acquittal - Rape Case - IPC Sections 342, 376(2)(g) - The court discussed the lack of conclusive evidence against the accused, emphasizing the need for trustworthy testimony and the benefit of doubt in criminal cases, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged that she was kidnapped and raped by the accused in a sugarcane field. The prosecution's case relied on her testimony and medical evidence, but significant doubts arose regarding the credibility of the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence against the accused, noting inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the prosecutrix's motives, leading to the conclusion that the accused deserved the benefit of doubt.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused under IPC Sections 342 and 376(2)(g).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt must result in acquittal, which was applicable in this case due to the lack of credible evidence.
Result: The appeals are dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused is upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
These two Appeals have arisen from a common judgment dated 02.09.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No.92 of 2012, “State vs. Gurbinder Singh” and in Sessions Trial No. 279 of 2012, “State vs. Balvinder Singh alias Billa and Satpal alias Kali,” by which, the respondents – accused persons have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “I.P.C.”) and Section 376 (2) (g) I.P.C.
2. The delay of 100 days in filing the Government Appeal No.23 of 2014 was condoned and leave to appeal was granted on 10.12.2015.
3. The delay of 100 days in filing the Government Appeal No.22 of 2014 is condoned and leave to appeal is granted. Admit the Government Appeal No.22 of 2014.
4. The Government Appeal No.22 of 2014 will be treated as a leading case.
5. In short, the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix’s father (PW1) informed the police Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar through his written information dated 15.11.2011 (Ext. Ka2) that on the night of 11/12.11.2011, his daughter (PW1) had gone for defecation. She did not return home. He had given an information to the police on 12.11.2011. She returned home on the evening of 13.11.2011. She told that when she had gone to the field to defecate, Balvinder Singh alias Billa, Gurbinder alias Ginda and Satpal Singh alias Kali forcibly took her away after showing her weapon and raped her in the forest for two days. He took his daughter to Khatima Hospital the next day.
6. On the said information (Ext. Ka.2), an FIR (Ext. Ka.3) was registered by Constable Ganesh Tamta (PW3) on 15.11.2011 at 20.35 hrs.
7. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Her medical examination was conducted. The clothes, she was wearing at the time of the said incident, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. Ka.17), semen was detected on Salwar and underwear of the prosecutrix. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.19) was filed by Sub-Inspector Sandhya Rani (PW10).
8. Charges under Section 342 I.P.C. and Section 376(2) (g) I.P.C. were framed against the respondents – accused persons. As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held.
9. The prosecution examined ten witnesses.
10. Statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The respondents – accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, are trustworthy, which are enough to establish the involvement of the respondents – accused persons in the commission of the crime.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate, appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. He contended that the prosecutrix, a major lady, wanted to marry Gurbinder Singh and when her marriage did not take place with him, she falsely implicated the respondents by creating a concocted story.
14. We have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution.
15. On 01.12.2011, Dr. L.S. Toliya (PW7) took X-ray of the prosecutrix to determine her age. According to him, her age was between 19 to 21 years.
16. The prosecutrix (PW1) has stated that the incident place was a sugarcane field, 2-3 fields away from her house. The accused persons had kept her in the said field for three days and three nights. They had raped her in that field. Hardayal had seen her in the sugarcane field. The prosecutrix’s brother-in-law (Jija) (PW5) has stated that Hardayal had told that she (prosecutrix) was sitting in the sugarcane field. Then he and other persons went there and brought her home. The proseuctrix’s father (PW2) has stated that he does not know any Hardayal. Hardayal has not been examined by the prose
In criminal law, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; any doubt benefits the accused.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in witness statements and lack of supporting medical evidence can weaken the case.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases of heinous crimes like rape, and the testimony of the prosecutrix must be reliable and corroborated with medical and o....
The judgment underscores the importance of credible evidence and the need for timely reporting in sexual offence cases to ensure justice.
The conviction for rape and trespass was upheld based on credible witness testimony, and the sentence was reduced considering the time elapsed since the crime.
The judgment emphasized the principle that an appellate court must bear in mind the double presumption in favor of the accused in case of acquittal and should not disturb the finding of acquittal rec....
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.