Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ritu Bahri, Alok Kumar Verma, JJ.
State of Uttarakhand - Appellant
Versus
Ravindra and Others - Respondents
Government Appeal No. 53 of 2014
Decided On : 13-03-2024
Acquittal - Criminal Charges - IPC Sections 376, 511, 323, 504, 506 - The court emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence and the presumption of innocence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused attempted to rape the victim and assaulted a witness. The victim's father reported the incident, but key witnesses 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 conclusive evidence against the accused, as many witnesses contradicted the allegations, and the victim's testimony lacked corroboration.
Issues: Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused was justified based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and the prosecution must provide clear and corroborative evidence to support its case.
Result: The Government Appeal is dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused is upheld.
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 assaulted the prosecution witness PW3 with a knife and ran away from the spot. His daughter informed him about this incident. He, his family members and villagers went to Surendra’s house. He complained about Surendra’s son Ravindra. On this, Surendra, Rajendra and Rajneesh beat him. They threatened to kill him if he reported the incident to the police.
3. An FIR No. 224 of 2011 (Ext. Ka.2) was lodged with police station Gangnahar, District Haridwar on 08.09.2011 at 16:05 hrs pursuant to the written information (Ext.Ka.1). The said written information was written by the prosecution witness PW8 on the informant’s behest, on which the informant (PW1) had put his signature. The FIR was registered by Constable Gambhir Singh Rawat (PW5). Dr. Swati Murari (PW10) examined the injuries of the victim and the witness PW3 on 07.09.2011 Sub-Inspector Darshan Prasad (PW7) took up investigation. He recorded statements of the witnesses. Site plan (Ext. Ka. 4) was prepared by him. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.7) was submitted by him.
4. The Trial Court framed charges against the respondents-accused. As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses.
6. Statements of the respondents-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution.
7. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General, contended that the victim (PW6) and the injured (PW3) have supported the prosecution’s case. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is trustworthy. The guilt of the respondents is fully proved, therefore, the judgment of acquittal is not justify in the eye of law.
8. The law is well settled that the order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of the innocence of the accused. Equally, it is the duty of the Court to see that the guilty person does not escape from the punishment. Therefore, we have carefully assessed the evidence, produced by the prosecution.
9. PW1 (informant) is the father of the alleged victim. He was not present at the spot when the incident happened with his daughter. According to his written information (Ext. Ka.1), his wife was cutting grass near the incident place, but, his wife (PW2) has not supported the allegations of the FIR.
10. PW2 stated that she had not gone to cut the grass and had not witnessed any such incident.
11. According to the FIR, when an attempt was made to apprehend the respondent-accused Ravindra, he had stabbed the prosecution witness PW3. But, while not supporting the prosecution’s case, the prosecution witness (PW3) stated that Ravindra had not caused him any injury with the knife.
12. The prosecuti
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
