Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 486 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Ravindra Sailal

2024-07-16

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Pankaj Purohit, J.) : Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024) Heard learned counsel for the parties on Delay Condonation Application. 2. As per office report, there is a delay of 60 days in filing the Government Appeal against the impugned judgment and order. Since, the reasons given by the applicant/State in the Delay Condonation Application supported by the affidavit, are sufficient and well explained, therefore, the delay of 60 days, in filing the government appeal, is condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024) made therefor, is allowed. Special Leave to Appeal No.262 of 2024 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on Leave to Appeal Application. 4. This government appeal along with leave to appeal application has been preferred by the State/appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 12.01.2024 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge (POCSO), Pithoragarh in Special Sessions Trial No.36 of 2022 State Vs. Ravindra Sailal and another, whereby, the respondent No.1-Ravindra Sailal was acquitted of the charges for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and the respondent No.2-Gajendra Pujara and Bhim Bahadur Bohra were acquitted of the charge for offence punishable under Section 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. No appeal/application has been filed against the acquittal of accused-Bhim Bahadur Bohra. 5. It is the case of the prosecution in short that complainant-Sub Inspector Megha Sharma has lodged a complaint in P.S. Kotwali Pithoragarh on 27.06.2022 stating therein that on 27.06.2022, while she along with police party on the directions of senior officers, went to Village Marsauli Bhaat Aathgaon Shiling, Tehsil Pithoragarh, they found that one Gajendra Singh, who is originally from Nepal, got solemnized the marriage of his minor daughter of 15-16 years of age. On being inquired, Gajendra Singh (respondent No.2/accused) told the complainant that he has five children- four daughters and one son; his cousin sister brought a marriage proposal for his daughter and the marriage was solemnized, as per Nepali rites and rituals, with Ravindra Sailal S/o Durga Sailal, R/o Devalgaon, Dharchula, District Pithoragarh on 17.06.2022. On being asked, Gajendra Singh showed photographs of Ravindra Sailal with victim and marksheet of Class-VIII of victim, in which, the date of birth of victim was recorded as 06.07.2007. According to it, the victim was a minor. On being asked, Gajendra Singh showed photographs of Ravindra Sailal with victim and marksheet of Class-VIII of victim, in which, the date of birth of victim was recorded as 06.07.2007. According to it, the victim was a minor. Gajendra Singh further told the police that his minor daughter was living with Ravindra Sailal in Krishnapuri, Pithoragarh, wherefrom the minor was recovered and sent for counseling to Child Welfare Committee (CWC) Office, Jagdamba Colony. In her counseling, victim affirmed that Gajendra Singh married her with Ravindra Sailal on 17.06.2022 and both of them were living as husband and wife. After counseling under the orders of CWC, the victim was sent to Sakhi One Stop Centre, Bin, Pithoragarh along with member of Child Helpline Beena Saun and Lady Constable 164 C.P. Kavita Mehra. 6. Investigation was ensued and chargesheet was submitted on 24.08.2022 against the respondent No.1-Ravindra Sailal under Section 376 IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and against the respondent No.2-Gajendra Pujara under Section 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and the investigation continued against co-accused Bhim Bahadur Bohra and Krishna Devi Bohra, later on whose names came to light. On 17.09.2022, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against co-accused persons Krishna Devi and Bhim Bahadur Bohra under Section 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. 7. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, namely, PW-1 victim, PW-2 Urmila Karki, PW-3 Sub Inspector Megha Sharma (complainant), PW-4 Beena Saun, PW-5 Manmohan Singh Dhami, PW-6 Dr. Raini Pangti, PW-7 Laxmi Dutt Kapri, PW-8 Constable 157 C.P. Balbir Singh Rawat and PW-9 Sub Inspector Babita Tamta (Investigating Officer), before the learned trial court to prove its case against the respondents/accused persons and documentary evidences were also produced. Thereafter, the statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, they stated that they have been falsely implicated with the aforesaid crime by the prosecution. 8. Learned State Counsel vehemently argued that the acquittal recorded by the learned trial court needs interference, as it is a case of child marriage and commission of rape upon her. He further contended that learned trial court has fell into error of law and facts by overlooking the glaring facts of the evidence of the case and wrongly acquitted the respondents. 9. He further contended that learned trial court has fell into error of law and facts by overlooking the glaring facts of the evidence of the case and wrongly acquitted the respondents. 9. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court and found that learned trial court reached to this conclusion that the case of the prosecution is doubtful and it has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The glaring contradiction was found and recorded by the learned trial court in Para 27 of the impugned judgment, on the basis of which, it found the case of prosecution highly doubtful. Learned trial court also recorded its findings in Para 23 of the impugned judgment that the fact that respondent No.1-Ravindra Sailal was seen with victim is not supported by any evidence neither any photographs were found, which were shared with the Investigating Officer. The credibility of the witnesses was doubted by the learned trial court, and, accordingly, acquitted the respondents and co-accused Bhim Bahadur Bohra. 10. Having gone through the impugned judgment and after hearing learned State Counsel, we feel that sufficient reasons have been given by the learned trial court while acquitting the respondents and thus, we do not find any compelling reason to interfere in the well-reasoned judgment recorded by the learned trial court. It is a settled law that acquittal would reinforce the innocence of accused persons and where, there are two views and one view which has been adopted in favour of the accused persons, cannot be interfered with lightly. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Government Appeal No.162 of 2024 11. Since, we have declined to grant leave to appeal, accordingly, Government Appeal No.162 of 2024 is also dismissed.