Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 270 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Bablu

2024-04-24

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RITU BAHRI, C.J. 1. The State has come up in appeals against the judgment/order dated 06.07.2013, passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, Uttarakhand in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2007, Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2007, Sessions Trial No. 368 of 2007 and Sessions Trial No. 105 of 2009. 2. The respondents Mahaveer, Vikram Singh @Sangard, Manga and Bablu have been acquitted of charges under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Respondents Mangeram, Surendra and Sher Singh have been acquitted of the charges under Section 376(2)(G) IPC. Respondents Mangeram, Harichand, Nathiram, Rajkumar, Mamraj, Gyan Singh, Ram Singh, Dheer Singh and Satpal have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 420 read with 34 IPC, Section 120B IPC and Section 193 IPC. 3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that a written complaint was given on 01-08-2006 by the complainant in Police Station Bhagwanpur, Haridwar stating that on 29-07-2006 at around 12 o’clock in the day, his daughter was alone at home, he asked his neighbour Rajkumar that where his daughter had gone, Rajkumar told him that Mahavir, S/o Ataru, R/o Khedki P.S. Purkaji District-Muzaffarnagar, Bablu @ Julfa, S/o Raja, R/o Village Abdalpur PS Purkaji District-Muzaffarnagar, Vikram @Sangad, S/o Ranu, R/o Mann has maliciously kidnapped his daughter with the intention of forcibly marrying her. These three persons kidnapped the victim girl to get her marry with Mahavir. The victim is minor whose age is around 14-15 years. He requested to take the legal action against the accused. 4. On the basis of the tehrir, the case was registered under Sections 363, 366 of IPC, as Case Crime No. 122/06. The preliminary investigation of the case was done by SI Vijay Bharti. After him, the investigation was done by Sub-Inspector B.L. Bharti, SI K.P. Tamta and SI Ram Singh. The investigation officer started the investigation on 1-8-06, obtained the necessary documents from the police station and recorded a copy of the complainant's complaint in the case diary, recorded the complainant's case and the statements of the author of the FIR and other witnesses , also of witness Rajkumar. On the behest of witness Rajkumar, he inspected the incident site, prepared a map, recorded the evidence and arrested accused Mahavir on 7-8-06 and accused Vikram on 8-8-08 and recorded their statements. On the behest of witness Rajkumar, he inspected the incident site, prepared a map, recorded the evidence and arrested accused Mahavir on 7-8-06 and accused Vikram on 8-8-08 and recorded their statements. On 27-8-06, on the basis of information given by Mangeram, S/o Harichand on telephone that the body of the victim was suspected to be in Bijnor Barrage, he reached Bijnor Barrage and tried to search for the body. On 28-8-06, police swimmers and divers were made to search for the body, but the dead body was not found. On 30-8-06, accused Bablu was arrested and his statement was recorded. On 20-9-06, affidavits of complainant Omprakash, Hari Chand s/o Nanda, Ramsingh, S/oHarnand, Gyan Singh, S/o Ghasiram, Rajkumar S/o Harmal, Mamraj, S/o Sundu, Nathiram S/o Harnand, Dhirsingh, S/o Harikishan, Satpal, S/o Gopi were received from the police station office, which were recorded in the case diary and attached to the case diary. On 2-10-06, accused Manga s/o Jaharu was arrested and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet number 131/06 was filed against accused Mahavir, Vikram @Sangad and Manga, S/o Jaharu under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and on 24-10-06, charge-sheet number 131A/06 under section 363, 366 IPC was sent against accused Bablu. 5. During further Investigation, a dead body was recovered in the Bijnor Barrage, which the persons tried to disguise with the body of the victim by giving false affidavit. Sections of 420, 120B and 193 of the IPC were added against these persons namely Mangeram, S/o Harish Chand, Hari Chand, Nathiram, Rajkumar, Mamraj, Gyan Singh, Ram Singh, Dheer Singh and Satpal Singh. After completing all the formalities of the investigation, charge-sheet number 131B/08 was submitted against the accused persons Nathiram, Rajkumar, Mamraj, Gyan Singh, Ram Singh, Dheer Singh and Satpal Singh under Sections 420, 120B, 193 of the IPC, on 18-02-2007. 6. During Preliminary Investigation, an information was received through the informer that the victim had come to her village Dada Jalalpur, on this information the investigation officer reached the victim’s house and took her statement, got the victim’s medical done and took her to record her statement before the court under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The statement of the victim was recorded and after completing all the investigation, the investigation officer KP Tamta sent Charge-Sheet no. 131C/06 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Mangeram, S/o Phool Singh and Surendra on 29-08-2007. 131C/06 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Mangeram, S/o Phool Singh and Surendra on 29-08-2007. Investigation officer Ram Singh sent charge-sheet number 131D/06 against accused Sher Singh to the court under Section 376, on which cognizance was taken by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee on dated 06-10-2006, 28-10-2006, 01-09-2007 and 25-02-2008 respectively and the cases were registered as Criminal Case number 638/06, Criminal Case number 655/06, Criminal Case number 113/07 and Criminal Case number 76/08. Thereafter, completing the formalities under Section 207, IPC, the case had been committed to the Sessions Court, Haridwar as the same was triable by the Sessions Court. In the Sessions Court, these cases were respectively Sessions Trial No. 82/07, Sessions Trial No. 83/07, Sessions Trial No. 368/07 and Sessions Trial No. 105/09. Later, by the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar these four sessions trials were transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar for trial. 7. In Sessions Trial No. 82/07, the charges were framed against the accused Mahavir, accused Vikram Singh @ Sangad and accused Manga under Section 363, 366 IPC. In Sessions Trial number 83/07, the charges were framed against the accused Bablu under Section 363, 366 IPC. In Sessions Trial number 368/07, the charges were framed against the accused Mangeram S/O Harish Chand, Hari Chand, Nathiram, Rajkumar, Mamraj, Gyan Singh, Ram Singh, Dheer Singh and Satpal Singhunder Sections 420/34, 120B, 193 of the IPC. In Sessions Trial No. 105/09, the charges were framed against the accused person Sher Singh under Section 376(2)(G) of the IPC. The accused persons denied the charges and demanded the trial. 8. The record of sessions trials were consolidated and the Sessions Trial Number 82/07 was treated as leading file. 9. To prove its case, the prosecution examined following witnesses in Session Trial No. 82/07, before the Court to examine: (i) PW-1 Rajkumar (ii) PW-2 Victim (iii) PW-3 Complainant (iv) PW-4 SI Satendra Singh (v) PW-5 Investigating officer SI Vijay Bharti (vi) PW-6 Dr. Yogesh Kumar (vii) PW-7 Dr. Aruna Dabral 10. The Prosecution produced following witnesses in Sessions Trial 368/07, before the court to examine: (i) PW-1 Complainant (ii) PW-2 Victim (iii) PW-3 Investigating officer SI Vijay Bharti (iv) PW-4 SI Satendra Singh (v) PW-5 Dr. Yogesh Kumar (vi) PW-6 SI KP Tamta (vii) PW-7 Dr. Aruna Dabral 11. Yogesh Kumar (vii) PW-7 Dr. Aruna Dabral 10. The Prosecution produced following witnesses in Sessions Trial 368/07, before the court to examine: (i) PW-1 Complainant (ii) PW-2 Victim (iii) PW-3 Investigating officer SI Vijay Bharti (iv) PW-4 SI Satendra Singh (v) PW-5 Dr. Yogesh Kumar (vi) PW-6 SI KP Tamta (vii) PW-7 Dr. Aruna Dabral 11. Following witnesses were examined before the court in Sessions Trial Number 105/09: (i) PW-1 Victim (ii) PW-2 Complainant (iii) PW-3 SI Satendra Singh (iv) PW-4 IO SI Vijay Bharti (v) PW-5 Dr. Yogesh Kumar (vi) PW-6 Retired SI Ram Singh (vii) PW-7 Investigation Officer B.L. Bharti (viii) PW-8 Investigation Officer SI KP Tamta (ix) PW-9 Dr. Aruna Dabral 12. The Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their Statements, the accused person denied the story of the prosecution. The complaint given by the complainant was false, denied the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses and stated that they were implicated in the false case. Sauraj DW1 was examined as a defence witness. 13. The court after hearing all the arguments from both sides and after going through all the evidences concluded that in a situation where the victim was unable to tell and identify the house of the accused Sher Singh in village Sikandarpur, and did not tell where she was raped. She did not tell her place of residence in Gwalior where she was residing for a period of more than four months. She was not able to tell anything about the incident of rape and also that who met her on the road on the day of the incident, who made her to sit in the tempo, who left her at the railway station, who made her to sit in a train and whether she informed any civil person or railway police or any other authority about the incident that happened to her that day. No explanation has been given for not informing the police or any other officer at the railway station or to any other passenger. In such a situation, the integrity and credibility of the victim’s evidence becomes doubtful. 14. The original of the alleged false affidavits have not been made available on record by the prosecution. No efforts were made by the Investigating Officer to get the original affidavits. 15. In such a situation, the integrity and credibility of the victim’s evidence becomes doubtful. 14. The original of the alleged false affidavits have not been made available on record by the prosecution. No efforts were made by the Investigating Officer to get the original affidavits. 15. As per the examination-in-chief of PW-3 S.I. Vijay Bharti, on 27.08.2006, Mangeram informed that the dead body of his father was found in Bijnor. There is a possibility of getting trapped in the water in the barrage. On this information, when he went to Bijnor Barrage, he found the complainant and village people were present there. On 28.08.2006, when the police force went to Bijnor Barrage with the divers, the complainant told that the body had been washed away. They searched for the body but could not find it. 16. The evidence has rightly been examined keeping in view that the victim had not been able to identify the house of Sher Singh in village Sikanderpur where she was allegedly raped, and she also did not tell about the place where she stayed in Gwalior for a period of four months. She has not been able to tell the place where she was raped. She was not able to tell about the incident of rape and who met her on the road on the date, who made her to sit in the tempo, and who left her at the railway station, and further for all these months, no explanation was given by the victim why she did not give any information to the police or any other officer living at the station or any other passenger. The credibility of victim’s evidence becomes doubtful. 17. The judgment of the trial court of acquittal does not require any interference. The trial court has not ignored any evidence, produced by the prosecution. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these Government Appeals, and the same are, hereby, dismissed. 19. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 20. A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of Government Appeal No. 50 of 2014, Government Appeal No. 51 of 2014 and Government Appeal No. 52 of 2014.