IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This application seeking leave to appeal along with Delay Condonation Application and Government Appeal, has been preferred by the State of Uttarakhand against the judgment and order dated 13.06.2022 passed by learned F.T.S.C./Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Session Trial No. 218 of 2021, “State Vs. Ash Mohammad”, whereby the respondent/accused person was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 of IPC.

2. Notice was issued to the respondent/accused person to file objection on the application of condoning the delay in filing the Government Appeal vide order dated 16.11.2022 and Mr. Mohd. Safdar, advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and sought time to file objection on the Delay Condonation Application as well as on the application seeking leave to appeal.

3. Today, the matter is listed before this Court. Despite opportunity, no objection has come forward from the side of the respondent/accused person on Delay Condonation Application as well as on application seeking leave to appeal. This Court proceeds to hear the parties on both the applications, on the basis of oral submission/objection made by respondent/accused person.

Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2022)

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Delay Condonation Application. As per office report, there is a delay of 64 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 occasioned in getting the approval to file the appeal against the impugned judgment and order, therefore, the reasons are sufficient and well explained. Accordingly, the delay in filing the government appeal is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2022) made therefor, stands allowed.

Leave to Government Appeal

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is submitted by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the case of the prosecution started on a written report submitted by the victim-complainant at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, wherein, she stated that her cousin-Ash Mohammad, resident of District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh used to come to her house and liked her. On 17.12.2016, he came to the house of the victim, when no one was present there in the house. He had lunch and started teasing the victim and committed rape upon her; when the victim (PW-1) told him that she would sue him and inform the family members, he threatened her not to disclose anything about the incident to anyone and stated that he would marry her. It is further stated in the first information report that respondent/accused took the complainant/victim at Gurgaon for a job and got appointed her in a firm. He, on various occasions, also made physical relationship with the complainant/victim-PW-1 forcibly.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, on 17.04.2019 at 19:24 hrs., a Case Crime No.286 of 2019 under Section 376 IPC was registered against the respondent/accused in Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and trial proceeded, wherein, as many as 06 witnesses i.e. PW-1 Victim, PW-2 Mohammad Tahir (mother of the victim/PW-1), PW-3 Constable Prem Prakash, PW-4 Shubham Sharma, PW-5 Dr. Aastha Gupta and PW-6 Sub-Inspector Mansa Dhyani, were examined and documentary evidence was also produced.

8. It is strenuously submitted by learned Deputy Advocate General that the respondent/accused was wrongly acquitted by the learned trial court inasmuch as PW-1/victim has supported the case of the prosecution by deposing during trial that the respondent/accused Ash Mohammad forcibly made physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. It is also submitted by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the version of the victim has been consistent during investigation and trial. When quizzed by this Court, he admitted that there are contra