SL.

No

Date

Office Notes, reports,

orders or

proceedings or

directions and

Registrar’s order

with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

SPLA No.51 of 2023

Connected With

GA No.19 of 2023

With

IA/1/2023 (Delay Condonation Application)

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder

for the State/ Appellant.

This State Appeal, which has been

preferred against the judgment of acquittal

whereby one of the co-accused, Thaan Singh,

the respondent herein, has been acquitted for

his involvement in the commission of offences

under Section 203 r/w Section 120-B of IPC

to be read with Section 16/ 17 of the POCSO

Act.

The appeal is supported with Delay

Condonation

Application

seeking

condonation of 81 days of delay which has

chanced in preferring the appeal.

Having heard the learned Government

Advocate

on

the

Delay

Condonation

Application and being satisfied on the same,

for the reasons given the Delay Condonation

Application would stand allowed.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant

on application for leave to appeal.

In the judgment impugned which is

under challenge i.e. dated 30.09.2022, the

respondent herein had been acquitted of his

charges under Section 203 r/w 120-B of IPC

and Section 16/ 17 of the POCSO Act.

The applicant’s son, Neeraj, was shown

to be involved in the commission of offences

under Section 363, 366A and under Section

376(n) as well as Section 5/6 of the POCSO

Act and, accordingly, he has been convicted

by the Court of learned Special Sessions

Judge, Uttarkashi in S.S.T. No.41 of 2019.

So far as the present respondent’s role

pertaining to the commission of the offence

under Section 203 r/w 120-B of IPC is

concerned, the learned Sessions Court had

considered the evidence which was adduced

by PW10 and PW11 and, particularly, the

statement which was recorded by PW7,

wherein the Court has observed that the

prosecution has absolutely failed to prove

that the present respondent - Thaan Singh,

was at all responsible in laying down a

conspiracy in collusion with the principal

accused person- his son for commission of

offences under Section 203 r/w Section 120-

B of IPC. The Court has observed that even

looking to the statement of PW11, who, in his

statement, recorded on 02.08.2019, has

stated that he had never deposited the

amount of ₹20,000/- into the account of the

principal accused person. Not even that, the

statement

of

PW12

Abinash

Mall

was

recorded, who has stated that in the account

of Devraj as it was standing in his bank, the

bank slip does find the signature of Devraj,

but there was no transaction which had

taken place into the account of the present

respondent.

The learned Court has carved out an

exception that the so called deposit made of

₹20,000/- into the account of Neeraj, the

principal accused person, in which the

Investigating Officer had not scrutinised the

slip by virtue of which the deposit was made

and the same was not compared with the

signature of the depositor and nor its

analysis

was

made

in

comparison

of

verification of signature of Thaan Singh.

Hence, the Court has observed that, it has

been proved beyond doubt that Thaan Singh

was not at all involved in depositing the

amount of ₹20,000/-into the account of his

son, nor the same has been proved contrary

by the prosecution.

Owning to the findings which have been

recorded by the trial Court on appreciation of

the evidence of that of the statement recorded

by PW7, PW10 and PW11 in the absence of

there being a comparative analysis of the

signatures of the deposit made into the

account of Neeraj, no commission of offence

under Section 203 r/w 120-B of IPC was

found to be made against the respondent.

In that view of the matter, this Court is

of the view that it is not a fit case in which

the leave to appeal is required to be granted

to the appellant as