Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 253 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Gurbinder Singh

2024-04-10

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. These two Appeals have arisen from a common judgment dated 02.09.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No.92 of 2012, “State vs. Gurbinder Singh” and in Sessions Trial No. 279 of 2012, “State vs. Balvinder Singh alias Billa and Satpal alias Kali,” by which, the respondents – accused persons have been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “I.P.C.”) and Section 376 (2) (g) I.P.C. 2. The delay of 100 days in filing the Government Appeal No.23 of 2014 was condoned and leave to appeal was granted on 10.12.2015. 3. The delay of 100 days in filing the Government Appeal No.22 of 2014 is condoned and leave to appeal is granted. Admit the Government Appeal No.22 of 2014. 4. The Government Appeal No.22 of 2014 will be treated as a leading case. 5. In short, the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix’s father (PW1) informed the police Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar through his written information dated 15.11.2011 (Ext. Ka2) that on the night of 11/12.11.2011, his daughter (PW1) had gone for defecation. She did not return home. He had given an information to the police on 12.11.2011. She returned home on the evening of 13.11.2011. She told that when she had gone to the field to defecate, Balvinder Singh alias Billa, Gurbinder alias Ginda and Satpal Singh alias Kali forcibly took her away after showing her weapon and raped her in the forest for two days. He took his daughter to Khatima Hospital the next day. 6. On the said information (Ext. Ka.2), an FIR (Ext. Ka.3) was registered by Constable Ganesh Tamta (PW3) on 15.11.2011 at 20.35 hrs. 7. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Her medical examination was conducted. The clothes, she was wearing at the time of the said incident, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. Ka.17), semen was detected on Salwar and underwear of the prosecutrix. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.19) was filed by Sub-Inspector Sandhya Rani (PW10). 8. Charges under Section 342 I.P.C. and Section 376(2) (g) I.P.C. were framed against the respondents – accused persons. As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. 9. Ka.17), semen was detected on Salwar and underwear of the prosecutrix. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.19) was filed by Sub-Inspector Sandhya Rani (PW10). 8. Charges under Section 342 I.P.C. and Section 376(2) (g) I.P.C. were framed against the respondents – accused persons. As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. 9. The prosecution examined ten witnesses. 10. Statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The respondents – accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence, adduced by the prosecution, are trustworthy, which are enough to establish the involvement of the respondents – accused persons in the commission of the crime. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate, appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. He contended that the prosecutrix, a major lady, wanted to marry Gurbinder Singh and when her marriage did not take place with him, she falsely implicated the respondents by creating a concocted story. 14. We have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution. 15. On 01.12.2011, Dr. L.S. Toliya (PW7) took X-ray of the prosecutrix to determine her age. According to him, her age was between 19 to 21 years. 16. The prosecutrix (PW1) has stated that the incident place was a sugarcane field, 2-3 fields away from her house. The accused persons had kept her in the said field for three days and three nights. They had raped her in that field. Hardayal had seen her in the sugarcane field. The prosecutrix’s brother-in-law (Jija) (PW5) has stated that Hardayal had told that she (prosecutrix) was sitting in the sugarcane field. Then he and other persons went there and brought her home. The proseuctrix’s father (PW2) has stated that he does not know any Hardayal. Hardayal has not been examined by the prosecution. This serious shortcoming makes the prosecution’s case doubtful. 17. It has been stated by the prosecutrix that she was not able to walk. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Sunita Chufal (PW6) on 16.11.2011. She has stated that no external injury was found on the prosecutrix’s body and there was no injury on her private parts either. Her hymen was torn. She was addicted to sex. 18. Dr. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Sunita Chufal (PW6) on 16.11.2011. She has stated that no external injury was found on the prosecutrix’s body and there was no injury on her private parts either. Her hymen was torn. She was addicted to sex. 18. Dr. Shamiuneesha (PW4) conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix on 30.11.2011. She has stated that no external injury was found on the prosecutrix’s body and there was no injury on her vagina either. Her hymen was torn. At the time of examination, her age was between 19 to 21 years. 19. Sub-Inspector Diwan Singh (PW8), Sub-Inspector Asha Bist (PW9) and Sub-Inspector Sandhya Rani (PW10) are the investigating officers. These three investigating officers had taken the statement of the prosecutrix. According to them, prosecutrix had not mentioned the incident of forcibly raping her by the accused persons. It has been stated by Sub-Inspector Diwan Singh (PW8) that the prosecutrix had given him a statement that if Gurbinder Singh did not marry her, she would send him to jail. 20. On assessing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents gets strength that the prosecutrix wanted to marry Gurbinder Singh and when her marriage did not take place with him, she implicated the respondents by creating a concocted story. 21. On a detailed examination and scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution, this Court upholds the view taken by the learned 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. They deserve benefit of doubt. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Trial Court. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned herein. 22. As a result, the instant both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The present Government Appeals are dismissed accordingly. 23. The bail bonds of the respondents Balvinder Singh alias Billa and Satpal alias Kali are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 24. A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of Government Appeal No.23 of 2014.