Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ritu Bahri, CJ. Alok Kumar Verma J.
State of Uttarakhand - Appellant
Vs.
Ajay Rana - Respondent
Government Appeal No. 14 OF 2015
Decided On : 20-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Government Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sachin Kumar Sharma
IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in evidence can lead to acquittal.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Sexual Offences - IPC Sections 363, 376; POCSO Act Section 4 - The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence and the burden of proof resting on the prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with kidnapping and rape of a minor, but the prosecutrix's statements contained significant contradictions, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found major contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements and the FIR, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charges of kidnapping and rape against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt must result in acquittal.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the accused.
JUDGMENT:
Ms. Ritu Bahri, CJ.
The present Government Appeal has been filed on behalf of the State, against the judgment/order dated 30-06-2014 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Special Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2013, “State Vs. Ajay Rana”, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Sections363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,2012, registered at Police Station-Kotwali, Uttarkashi, District Uttarkashi.
2. Brief facts emerge from the complaint filed in Police Station, Kotwali, Uttarkashi on 29.10.2013 naming the accused. The allegations levelled are that on 28.10.2013., the prosecutrix, like every day, was going for her computer class, when at 8.30 am, the accused, a truck driver, her neighbour, snatched her copies and pens and started walking towards Ram Leela ground where his truck was parked. The prosecutrix followed the accused to take her copies and pen and on reaching near the truck, the accused forcefully pulled her into the cabin of the truck and gave her a hanky after which she fainted. On 29.10.2013, when she regained consciousness at around 06:00 A.M. she found herself in Harshil. When she asked the accused to drop her home, the accused brought her to Uttarkashi in a truck and dropped her at Ramlila Ground and told her that if she tells anyone about incident then, she will be insulted.
3. The said information was registered as Case Crime No. 44 of 2013 under section 363 of I.P.C, at Police Station Kotwali, Uttarkashi.
4. The charge sheet was filed on 10.12.2013 and on 20.12.2013, the charges under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 were framed against the accused. He denied the charges.
5. The prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
P.W.1- Mother of the prosecutrix
P.W.2- Prosecutrix
P.W.3- Constable Arvind Kumar
P.W.4- Dr. Smt. Sudha Singh
P.W.5- Sub Inspector Ravi Prasad
6. The Trial Court observed contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix in the tehrir and the statements made by her under section 164 of Cr.P.C. According to the F.I.R., on 28.10.2013 the accused dragged the prosecutrix inside the cabin of truck and gave her a hanky after which the prosecutrix lost consciousness, when she regained consciousness the next day i.e. on 29.10.2013 at around 06:00 A.M. she found herself in Harshil. However, in her oral evidence, the prosecutrix admitted that the accused stopped the truck in a secluded place near Heena and forcefully raped her and while she was crying, the accused gave her a hanky and asked her to wipe her tears and after five-ten minutes she lost consciousness. The prosecutrix has not mentioned about the incident of rape in the F.I.R. Thereby, the version of the prosecution becomes doubtful and gives strength to the case of the accused that he was deceived by the case of the prosecutrix and her mother.
7. In the facts of the present case, as per the statements of the prosecutrix PW-2, the date and time of incident is 28.10.2013 at 08.30 A.M. and the date and time when the prosecutrix re-gained consciousness is mentioned to be 29.10.2013 at 06:00 A.M. The prosecutrix has stated that she lodged the complaint on the same day when she regained consciousness, however the F.I.R. has been lodged on 30.10.2013 at 22:15 hrs and no reason has been given for the delay in filing the F.I.R.
8. The Prosecution Witness No. 4 i.e. Dr. Sudha Singh has admitted in her oral evidence that the medical of PW-2 (prosecutrix) was conducted by her on 31.10.2013 and not on 01.11.2013, which was affirmed by the prosecutrix herself. However, in the F.I.R. the prosecutrix has mentioned that her medical examination was done on 01.11.2013. There is contradiction in the statement of the doctor and the prosecutrix regarding the date of medical examination.
9. The prosecutrix admits that she sta
