Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 186 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Arvind

2024-03-13

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : The State has come up in appeal against the judgment passed by the Court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 322/2013 (Old Number) 20757/2013 (New Number) dated 29.11.2013, whereby the respondent-Arvind, son of Ram Kishore has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 & 506 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 05.07.2013, a complaint was made by Parasram, S/o Harkesh Singh, who got the complaint written through Begram Singh Chauhan, S/o Dhyan Singh, R/o Jwalapur, Mohalla Dheerawali, Near Bhairo Mandir, Haridwar. As per the complainant, his daughter, aged 18-19 years, works in Bioment Sidcul Company, and on 05.07.2013, she came home crying at about 09:00 clock, and told him that one boy working in her company, whose name is Arvind, S/o Ram Kishore, was bothering her since a long time. Today, when she got down from a tempo near Dheerwali Barrier, he said he will drop her, and they will go from a shortcut. Thereafter, he took her near a lonely place, and misbehaved with her. She shouted that you should not behave like this, and, thereafter, he committed rape with her, and he left her there and went away. Before going, he told her that she should not share this incident with anybody, or else she will be killed. The complainant went with his daughter to the Thana and sought investigation against the above-said person, i.e. Arvind. 3. After the complaint was written, the Investigating Officer-SI Omkant Bhushan started investigation, after taking due permission from his Police Station, and he took one female Sub-Inspector Janki Bhandari on the site, where the incident took place. Being the time of night, the victim could not tell the right place of incident at night. After going home, the victim sent the salwaar, which she was wearing at the time of the incident, to the lady Sub-Inspector Janki Bhandari. On 06.07.2013, the statement of the victim was recorded, and the place of incident was identified. On 08.07.2013, after again going to the place of incident, enquiry was done from the persons staying around that area. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 IPC. On 06.07.2013, the statement of the victim was recorded, and the place of incident was identified. On 08.07.2013, after again going to the place of incident, enquiry was done from the persons staying around that area. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 IPC. Thereafter, the investigation was done in the office of Bioment Sidcul Company to see the Attendance Register, which showed that on 05.07.2013, the accused had come to the office, and after that he never came back to the office. On 09.07.2013, permission was taken from the Court to verify the age of the victim. In the Bioment Sidcul Company, statement of Rahul Singh was recorded. Statement of Naval Singh of Village Hetampur was also recorded. On 10.07.2013, statement of the mother of the victim was also recorded. On 11.07.2013, report, with respect to the age of the victim, was received. On 14.07.2013, the accused was arrested. 4. After completing the investigation, on 23.09.2013, a Challan was presented, and thereafter on 28.10.2013, charges under Sections 376 & 506 IPC were framed against the accused. The prosecution examined the following witnesses : P.W.-1 Parasram, the complainant. P.W.-2 Victim. P.W.-3 Head Constable Karam Singh. P.W.-4 Dr. Alpana Khare. P.W.-5 Rahul Singh. P.W.-6 Head Constable No. 98 Pushkar Singh. P.W.-7 Sub-Inspector Janki Bhandari P.W.-8 Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Omkant Bhushan 5. On 18.11.2013, statement of the accused, under Section 313 IPC, was recorded, in which he stated that a false FIR has been registered against him, and false allegations have been levelled against him. The accused examined the following witnesses : D.W.-1 Arvind D.W.-2 Mahipal Singh D.W.-3 Meenakshi 6. After going through the entire evidence, and arguments of the parties, the lower Court has acquitted the accused. 7. As per the evidence given by the accused D.W.-1, he loved the victim, and he wanted to marry her, but the victim’s sister-Meenakshi, and the family members did not agree to this relationship. As per the prosecution, the accused had taken the victim from Barrier No. 5 on the pretext that will take a shortcut route and drop the victim, which will save time. At Barrier No. 5, it is a crowded area and CISF personnel were deployed there. The defence witness Mahipal Singh-D.W.-2 was on duty at Barrier No. 5 on 05.07.2013 from 01:00 P.M. to 09:00 P.M. This fact is established by the evidence of Mahipal Singh-D.W.-2. At Barrier No. 5, it is a crowded area and CISF personnel were deployed there. The defence witness Mahipal Singh-D.W.-2 was on duty at Barrier No. 5 on 05.07.2013 from 01:00 P.M. to 09:00 P.M. This fact is established by the evidence of Mahipal Singh-D.W.-2. 8. Sub-Inspector Omkant Bhushan-P.W.-8 has given the same evidence that Barrier No. 5 is a busy area, and both these witnesses did not state that any boy had forcibly taken any girl into the bushes, and that the girl was trying to save herself, or any noise was made. There are shops around, and they remain open till 11:00 P.M. The prosecution witness Rahul SinghP.W.-5 has stated that, on the day of the incident, the victim, her sister-Meenakshi, and the accused had come to work in the company. As per the evidence given by this witness, all three of them, i.e. the victim, the accused and the victim’s sister-Meenakshi, were working in the same factory, and keeping in view the statement given by this employee of the company, the evidence given by the defence witness Meenakshi-D.W.-3 that she did not know Arvind (accused), and whether Arvind works in the said factory, did not reflect truth. 9. Finally, while referring to the evidence given by the victim, the Lower Court observed that, as per the evidence given by the victim, on the date of the incident, she, her sister-Meenakshi, and the accused had come to work, and after leaving from work, all three of them were sitting in the same auto-rickshaw. 10. Finally, while acquitting the accused, the Lower Court held that, neither the prosecution had been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed rape with the victim on the date of the alleged incident, nor was the semen sample of the accused matched with the semen found on the salwaar of the victim. Even if it is presumed for some time that mutual physical intercourse took place between the accused and the victim on the day of the incident, even then the victim was a consenting party, and the accused was acquitted in this background. 11. Even if it is presumed for some time that mutual physical intercourse took place between the accused and the victim on the day of the incident, even then the victim was a consenting party, and the accused was acquitted in this background. 11. Counsel for the State has not been able to show any evidence led by the prosecution, which would go to show that the victim and the accused were not known to each other, rather a contradiction in the statement made by the sister of the accused MeenakshiD.W.-3 makes it more clear that on the day of the incident all three of them had gone to the office, as per the version given by the employee from the company Rahul Singh-P.W.-5. Hence, on the date of the incident, all three of them had gone to the office, and they were known to each other, coupled with the fact that Arvind (accused) had taken the victim from Barrier No. 5, which was a very busy area, the allegations of dragging and shouting of victim was held to be not possible. This finding of fact does not require any interference, as the victim was a major, and even in her statement she had admitted that she was known to Arvind (accused). 12. The present Government Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.