Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 561 (UTT)

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. SANJAY KUMAR

2014-12-10

ALOK SINGH, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT CRMA No. 1456 of 2013 There is 174 days delay in the filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, we are satisfied that delay in filing the appeal has been properly explained, therefore, delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. CRMA No. 14526 of 2013 stands disposed of accordingly. SPLA No. 156 of 2013 3. State is seeking leave to appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 14.01.2013 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 2001, whereby accused/respondents were acquitted from the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 368 and 376 of I.P.C. 4. We have heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State, Mr. Lokendra Dobhal and Mr. Manish Arora, learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondents and have carefully perused the record. 5. Perusal of Ex (A1), F.I.R. dated 12.08.2000 would reveal that the prosecutrix was in love with Sanjay Kumar (accused), therefore, she was shifted to the house of Anil Kumar (real uncle of the informant) in Mohalla Kankhal, District Haridwar from Meerapur, District Muzzaffarnagar on 30.07.2000; on 31.07.2000, Sanjay Kumar alongwith his brother Sunil Kumar and mother Smt. Mithilesh, uncle Ram Ratan and Smt Anita came from Meerapur, Muzzaffarnagar to Kankhal, Haridwar and took the prosecutrix with them after inducing her; prosecutrix was recovered from the house of Hari Om- respondent No.2 on 15.09.2000; prosecutrix was medically examined and she was found to be above 18 years of age. 6. Prosecutrix remained with the accused Sanjay Kumar for more than one and a half months before she could be recovered from the house of respondent No.2. During this period she did not raise any alarm and never tried to run away from the clutches of the accused. Learned Trial Court, having perused the entire record, came to the conclusion that since the prosecutrix was major and was in love with Sanjay Kumar (one of the co-accused), therefore, it seems that she was consenting party and she herself has gone with the accused Sanjay Kumar from Kankhal Haridwar to Muzzaffarnagar, from where, she was recovered, after one and a half months. 7. Innocence is attached with the accused and to rebut such presumption of innocence, cogent evidence should be produced to prove the guilt of the accused wiping out all possible doubts. 7. Innocence is attached with the accused and to rebut such presumption of innocence, cogent evidence should be produced to prove the guilt of the accused wiping out all possible doubts. In our considered opinion, while hearing the appeal against the judgment of acquittal, even if, two views are possible, view taken by the Trial Court should ordinarily be allowed to prevail. 8. Since, prosecutrix seems to be consenting party and admittedly, she was in love with the accused before shifting to Kankhal, Haridwar from Meerapur, Muzzaffarnagar and she remained with Sanjay Kumar for move than one month and did not raise any alarm during that period, therefore, view taken by the learned Trial Court seems to be justified. In our view, no useful purpose would be served in granting leave. Consequently, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal. Leave to appeal is declined. 9. Application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. 9. Consequently, Government Appeal is also dismissed.