IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Leave to Government Appeal No. 7 of 2021

In

Government Appeal No. 2 of 2021

18 August, 2025

JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

AND

JUSTICE SHRI ASHISH NAITHANI

State of Uttarakhand --Appellant

Versus

Janki Prasad --Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. K.S. Bora, learned D.A.G. for the State/Appellant.

Mr. Subhang Dobhal, learned counsel for the Respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT: (per Shri Ashish Naithani, J.

DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION

As per the application, there is a delay of 64

days in preferring this Government Appeal.

2. In view of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, and on being

satisfied with the same, we allow the application and condone the delay.

LEAVE TO GOVERNMENT APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2021

3. By this application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State seeks leave to challenge the judgment dated 22.09.2020 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2018, State v. Janki Prasad, whereby the accused- respondent Janki Prasad was acquitted of the charges under Sections 342, 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 read with 4 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution story, as emanating from the FIR dated 11.08.2018, are that a 13-year-old daughter of the complainant was returning from the market on 06.08.2018 when she was allegedly asked by the accused Janki Prasad to fetch a metal cup (Lota) from his house. It is alleged that as soon as the victim entered the house, the accused grabbed her by the waist, laid her on the bed, and attempted to commit rape.

5. The State’s case further alleges that the victim freed herself by biting the hand of the accused and escaped from the house. The incident was subsequently reported to the family members, and an FIR was lodged after a delay, as the complainant was in Delhi for his father's medical treatment.

6. During the course of investigation, the case was registered as Crime No. 34/2018 under Sections 342/376/511 of IPC and initially under Section 6/18 of the POCSO Act, which was later amended to Sections 3 read with 4 of the POCSO Act.

7. A charge-sheet was filed, and charges were framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. After evaluating the entire evidence on record, the Learned District and Session Judge, Chamoli, passed the impugned order of acquittal dated 22.09.2020. The trial court's reasoning for acquittal was based on several substantive grounds, which merit careful examination in the context of this application for leave to appeal.

9. The learned trial court, while acquitting the accused, highlighted serious infirmities in the prosecution case. A crucial aspect noted was the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which materially undermined the State’s version. Though an explanation was offered that the complainant was in Delhi for his father’s treatment, the trial court found such justification insufficient to dispel the adverse inference arising from the delay.

10. The court further highlighted glaring inconsistencies in the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC and her testimony during the trial. These contradictions raised doubts about the reliability of her account. Additionally, the medical evidence failed to support her version that she had bitten the hand of the accused while resisting, as no such injury was noted in the medical report. This mismatch between medical and oral evidence further weakened the State’s case.

11. Another crucial lapse was the State’s failure to examine independent witnesses such as Kheemanand Kuniyal and his daughter, whose testimony could have been vital. The court also noted the absence of proof that the victim had raised a hue and cry or resisted the alleged assault in a man