Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 187 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Ravindra

2024-03-13

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. This Government Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.09.2013, passed by learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2012, “State vs. Ravindra and three Others”, whereby, the respondent-accused Ravindra has been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”), and, the respondents Surendra, Rajendra and Rajnish have been acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 323, 504 and Section 506 IPC. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as it emerges from the evidence on record is that the victim’s father (PW1) gave a written information (Ext. Ka. 1) dated 07.09.2011 to the police station to the effect that today around 5:30 p.m., when his daughter (PW6) was going to defecate, the accused-Ravindra pulled her into a sugarcane field at a knife-point, broke her nada and tried to rape her. When the victim made noise the informant’s wife (PW2), who was cutting grass nereby, cousin sister of the victim (PW4), his son (PW9) reached the spot. When an attempt was made to apprehend the accused- Ravindra, he assaulted the prosecution witness PW3 with a knife and ran away from the spot. His daughter informed him about this incident. He, his family members and villagers went to Surendra’s house. He complained about Surendra’s son Ravindra. On this, Surendra, Rajendra and Rajneesh beat him. They threatened to kill him if he reported the incident to the police. 3. An FIR No. 224 of 2011 (Ext. Ka.2) was lodged with police station Gangnahar, District Haridwar on 08.09.2011 at 16:05 hrs pursuant to the written information (Ext.Ka.1). The said written information was written by the prosecution witness PW8 on the informant’s behest, on which the informant (PW1) had put his signature. The FIR was registered by Constable Gambhir Singh Rawat (PW5). Dr. Swati Murari (PW10) examined the injuries of the victim and the witness PW3 on 07.09.2011 Sub-Inspector Darshan Prasad (PW7) took up investigation. He recorded statements of the witnesses. Site plan (Ext. Ka. 4) was prepared by him. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.7) was submitted by him. 4. The Trial Court framed charges against the respondents-accused. As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. 5. He recorded statements of the witnesses. Site plan (Ext. Ka. 4) was prepared by him. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.7) was submitted by him. 4. The Trial Court framed charges against the respondents-accused. As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. 6. Statements of the respondents-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 7. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General, contended that the victim (PW6) and the injured (PW3) have supported the prosecution’s case. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is trustworthy. The guilt of the respondents is fully proved, therefore, the judgment of acquittal is not justify in the eye of law. 8. The law is well settled that the order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of the innocence of the accused. Equally, it is the duty of the Court to see that the guilty person does not escape from the punishment. Therefore, we have carefully assessed the evidence, produced by the prosecution. 9. PW1 (informant) is the father of the alleged victim. He was not present at the spot when the incident happened with his daughter. According to his written information (Ext. Ka.1), his wife was cutting grass near the incident place, but, his wife (PW2) has not supported the allegations of the FIR. 10. PW2 stated that she had not gone to cut the grass and had not witnessed any such incident. 11. According to the FIR, when an attempt was made to apprehend the respondent-accused Ravindra, he had stabbed the prosecution witness PW3. But, while not supporting the prosecution’s case, the prosecution witness (PW3) stated that Ravindra had not caused him any injury with the knife. 12. The prosecution witness PW4 is the victim’s cousin. This witness has stated that she was present at the spot at the time of the incident. She further stated that the accused Ravindra had injured his brother PW3 with a knife but neither the evidence of PW3 nor the statement of the victim herself corroborates the statement of this witness. 13. PW6, the victim has not adduced any such evidence that the respondent-accused Ravindra had stabbed PW3 with a knife at the time of the alleged incident. 13. PW6, the victim has not adduced any such evidence that the respondent-accused Ravindra had stabbed PW3 with a knife at the time of the alleged incident. 14. The victim (PW6) stated that she was around 20 years old at the time of the incident. She has stated that at the time of the incident, her aunt’s son (PW9) had saved him from the accused Ravindra, but, the prosecution witness PW9 has not supported her statement. The prosecution witness PW9 has stated that he has no knowledge of the incident. 15. The prosecution witness PW4 has stated that her uncle (PW1) was assaulted by the accused persons, but, she was not present at the spot. According to PW1, the accused persons had beaten him and injured him, but his medical report has not been filed by the prosecution. 16. Having thus scrutinized the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of acquittal, recorded by the trial court. There is no positive and conclusive evidence placed on record against the respondents by the prosecution to prove its case that the respondents were guilty of committing the alleged offence. 17. As a result, the appeal has no merit. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the present Government Appeal is dismissed. Respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.