IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Leave to Appeal No. 212 of 2025

With

Government Appeal No. 64 of 2025

State of Uttarakhand … Applicant

Versus

Rakesh Kumar … Respondent

Mr. K.S. Bora, Deputy Advocate General, for the

State/appellant.

J U D G M E N T return from the school and she had gone somewhere without any intimation. Subsequently, investigation was taken up, and the accused came to be arraigned as the person responsible for taking away the victim, who was allegedly a minor at the relevant time. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, and the accused was charged under Sections 354(A), 363 and 366 IPC read with relevant provisions of the POCSO Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

For the reasons indicated in the delay

condonation application (IA/1/2025), the same is allowed. Delay of 14 days in filing this appeal is

condoned.

2. By this petition under Section 419(3) of BNSS, State/petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2025, passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 22/2023, thereby acquitting the respondent from the charges framed against him for the offences punishable under Section 354(A), 363, 366 IPC and Section 7/8 of

POCSO Act.

3. Heard learned State Counsel and perused the

impugned judgment and order.

4. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the First Information Report lodged by PW-2 (father of the victim), is that on 03.02.2023, his daughter did not

The trial culminated in acquittal of the accused.

5. A perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal would reveal the victim (PW-1), in her testimony before the trial court, clearly stated that she was in love with the accused, that she had gone with him on her own accord, and that at no point did the accused entice her or establish any physical/sexual relations with her. She categorically stated that she had written a letter to relatives of the accused to tell them that she would marry the accused once he is released from jail. The victim’s statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC, where also she did not make any allegation against the accused nor did she state that he induced, forced or had sexual relations with her. The father of the victim (PW-2) admitted in his evidence that he had lodged the FIR against unknown on the advice and insistence of villagers. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, stated that the victim had disclosed to him that she was more than 18 years of age, a fact which the victim also stated in her deposition. He reiterated that no physical relations were established prior to marriage.

6. Thus, from the evidence, it is manifest that the prosecutrix herself has not supported the case of the prosecution. Rather, her testimony exculpates the accused completely. No allegation of physical or sexual assault is made either in her testimony before Court or in her statement under Section 164 CrPC. The FIR itself was lodged against unknown, and the father of the victim has candidly admitted that the FIR was filed only on the insistence of villagers.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where the prosecutrix herself does not support the allegation of enticement or sexual assault, and her testimony indicates voluntary companionship, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

8. In view of the above reasons, trial court held that though the victim is technically a minor by a few months, but there is no evidence of inducement, enticement or sexual exploitation. On the contrary, the evidence of the prosecutrix demolishes the prosecution case in its entirety. Accordingly, the trial court recorded the finding of acquittal. This Court in full agreement with the judgment of the trial court. Trial court has carefully considered the depositions of all material witnesses and arrived at a well-reasoned conclusion.

9. Consequently, leave to appeal is refused. Leave petition is dismi