Back
RITU BAHRI, ALOK KUMAR VERMA
State of Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Ravindra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
This Government Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.09.2013, passed by learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2012, “State vs. Ravindra and three Others”, whereby, the respondent-accused Ravindra has been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”), and, the respondents Surendra, Rajendra and Rajnish have been acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 323, 504 and Section 506 IPC.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as it emerges from the evidence on record is that the victim’s father (PW1) gave a written information (Ext. Ka. 1) dated 07.09.2011 to the police station to the effect that today around 5:30 p.m., when his daughter (PW6) was going to defecate, the accused-Ravindra pulled her into a sugarcane field at a knife-point, broke her nada and tried to rape her. When the victim made noise the informant’s wife (PW2), who was cutting grass nereby, cousin sister of the victim (PW4), his son (PW9) reached the spot. When an attempt was made to apprehend the accused- Ravindra, he assault
The presumption of innocence and the necessity for corroborative evidence are crucial in criminal proceedings, influencing the court's decision to uphold the acquittal.
The judgment underscores the importance of credible evidence and the need for timely reporting in sexual offence cases to ensure justice.
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and lack of reliable evidence, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in evidence can lead to acquittal.
The judgment emphasizes the need for substantive evidence and highlights that suspicion cannot substitute proof. It also underscores the importance of scrutinizing circumstantial evidence in a carefu....
The appellate court reinforced the principle that acquittals should not be overturned without substantial and compelling reasons, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
The evidentiary value of confessional statements made before the police and the requirement of material evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellate court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to significant contradictions in the victim's testimony and absence of supporting medical evidence, reinforcing the presumption of innocenc....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
