Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 306 (HP)

RAVINDRA DEVI ALIAS INDRA v. BRIJ LAL

2013-04-12

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, SURINDER SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT SURINDER SINGH, J. 1. CR. M.P. (M) No. 937 of 2012. There is delay of two years, three months and two days in filing the application for leave to appeal against acquittal in a State case, whereby the private respondents were tried under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code decided on 17.03.2011. 2. WE have heard and gone through the respective contentions. It is contended in the application that because of sexual exploitation by the private respondents, victim gave birth to a male child about 9 years ago. She got a stigma of being an unmarried mother. Another application (Cr. MP No. 293 of 2013) is also moved for conducting DNA test of the private respondents. 3. THE perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that when the pregnancy of the prosecutrix on becoming visibly prominent, her parents inquired the prosecutrix. Thereafter she disclosed to them holding private respondents responsible. Consequently FIR was lodged by her parents. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination. Later on, she delivered a male baby, who is now about 9 years. The prosecutrix and the statements of her parents coupled with the medical evidence, the challan was prepared and presented against the private respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. 4. THE grounds for condoning the delay are that the private respondents were acquitted on flimsy grounds. She came to know in the month of July, 2012 about the impugned judgment, when the private respondents started passing derogatory remarks to her and her family members proclaiming that they have won the game. Thereafter, she contacted her younger brother to find out the result of the rape case pending against the accused-respondents and contacted an Advocate, and then applied for copy of the impugned judgment, to which she obtained in the month of August, 2012. Again, she contacted an Advocate at Shimla. He told her to come with complete file, containing evidence and other documents. Her brother returned on 30.08.2012 to Shimla with requisite documents and got prepared the appeal and applications. The contentions raised in the application were totally denied by the accused-respondents. According to them, the petitioner has no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. He told her to come with complete file, containing evidence and other documents. Her brother returned on 30.08.2012 to Shimla with requisite documents and got prepared the appeal and applications. The contentions raised in the application were totally denied by the accused-respondents. According to them, the petitioner has no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. A valuable right has accrued to the private respondents, which cannot be thwarted on baseless allegations and otherwise also there is nothing in the case even on merit, the present proceedings have been filed to harass them. 5. THE learned trial Court, after considering the entire matter, did not find any evidence showing her to be minor as alleged but in turn she was found to be of more than 17 years and attained the age of discretion, in any case, not less than 16 years and her testimony was opined not inspiring confidence, rather she concealed her pregnancy from her parents and it was only on extensive inquiry of her parents, she disclosed and imputed the allegations of rape on the respondents, accordingly acquitted the private respondents on 17.3.2011 but filed the petition for leave to appeal on 2.9.2012. 6. IT is well considered principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without assigning reasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason. In the instant case, after considering the entire gamut of the case, neither the petitioner has any merit in her case nor sufficient cause is made out from the allegations made in the application. Therefore, the application for condoning delay in filing leave to appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the accused-respondents are making any derogatory utterances to her, she is at liberty to take recourse to law. Cr. Appeal No. 405 of 2012, Cr. MP (M) No. 938 of 2012 and Cr. MP No. 293 of 2013 No order, in view of dismissal of application for condonation of delay in filing application for leave to appeal. As such, the same are dismissed. Appeal dismissed.