Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 519 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Pankaj Prajapati

2024-07-30

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Purohit, J. Delay Condonation Application (IA No.1/2024) There is delay of 84 days in preferring this appeal along with an application seeking leave to appeal; being sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the same is condoned. The application seeking condonation of delay stands allowed accordingly. Special Leave to Government Appeal. 2. By means of this application, the State seeks to file the government appeal along with leave against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2024 passed by Learned F.T.C/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2021 (State vs. Pankaj Prajapati) whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 366, 376(3) and 506 Indian Penal Code, under Section 5(f)(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that victim had submitted a written report at the police station Jhankaiya, Udham Singh Nagar, with the contents that X who is at present studying in class 12th. The ex-PTI teacher Pankaj Prajapati had made physical relations with her when she was studying in class 10th and whenever she tried to raise her voice the accused/respondent threatened her to upload the obscene video on social media. The victim in fear of the accused/respondent used to give sleeping pills to her family members and when they were fast asleep, the accused/respondent used to visit her to have sexual intercourse. The accused/respondent also threatened her and her family members that he would finish them. On the basis of above information the case was registered as case crime no. 142/2020 on 30/11/2020 at police station Jhankaiya, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 452, 366, 376(3) and 506 Indian Penal Code, under Section 5(f)(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 4. The investigation officer conducted investigation of the case, recorded the statement of the witnesses and after inspecting the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan, inquest and on completion of investigation submitted a charge sheet under Sections 452, 366, 376(3) and 506 Indian Penal Code, under Section 5(f)(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in the court. The cognizance was taken against the accused/respondents and the case was committed to Learned Special Judge for trial. 5. The cognizance was taken against the accused/respondents and the case was committed to Learned Special Judge for trial. 5. The charges were framed on 17/08/2021 against the accused/respondent under Sections 452, 366, 376(3) and 506 Indian Penal Code, under Section 5(f)(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which he denied and claimed to be tried. 6. As many as seven witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. They are PW 1 father of victim/complainant, PW 2 victim, PW 3 doctor who medically examined the victim, PW 4 mother of the victim, PW 5 Principal/witness of date of birth, PW 6 Head Constable Sarita Vishwakarma, PW 7 Sub Inspector Neha Dhyani (Investigation Officer of the case) and documentary evidence was exhibited by the prosecution witnesses. 7. Thereafter, the statement of accused/ respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused stated the prosecution case to be false and stated that he was innocent but did not give any evidence in defence. 8. The trial court on conclusion of trial found that the prosecution could not prove the case against the accused/respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and it accordingly proceeded to acquit the accused/respondent as mentioned in Para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this government appeal with an application for leave to appeal. 9. PW 1 father of the victim/complainant reiterated the version of the FIR and stated that he has two children and the victim is the younger sibling. He further stated that the ex-PTI teacher Pankaj Prajapati had made physical relations with her when she was studying in class 10th and whenever she tried to raise her voice the accused/respondent threatened her to upload the obscene video on social media. The victim in fear of the accused/respondent used to give sleeping pills to the family members and when they were fast asleep, the accused/respondent used to visit her to have sexual intercourse. The accused/respondent also threatened her that he would finish her family members. 10. PW 2 victim in her examination in chief turned hostile and stated that the accused/respondent never had any sexual intercourse with her and it will be wrong to say that he took her obscene photographs. In her cross examination, she denied that the accused/respondent gave her sleeping pills to administer it to her family. 10. PW 2 victim in her examination in chief turned hostile and stated that the accused/respondent never had any sexual intercourse with her and it will be wrong to say that he took her obscene photographs. In her cross examination, she denied that the accused/respondent gave her sleeping pills to administer it to her family. She further denied that her step-mother never saw them having sexual intercourse. She stated that the statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was given under the influence of her mother and other persons. 11. PW 3 doctor examining the victim on oath stated that there were no injury marks on the victim’s body neither there were any scratches or injury marks in her private parts. She denied to give any statement regarding forced sexual intercourse. 12. PW 4 is the step-mother of the victim. She reiterated the version of the FIR and further stated that she personally witnessed the accused/respondent having sexual intercourse with the victim. Furthermore, on scolding the victim, he threatened to kill her. 13. PW 7 Sub Inspector Neha Dhyani in her examination in chief stated that on 01/12/2020, she visited the complainant’s house and took the statements of the victim in front of her parents and she then proceeded to arrest the accused/respondent. 14. The trial court after appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused/respondent as the victim herself denied any sexual intercourse with the accused/respondent. She further denied the claim of her step-mother that she herself saw the accused/ respondent having sexual intercourse with the victim. Further, the medical report also denied any semen or blood near the vaginal area and the doctor also denied to give any opinion regarding sexual intercourse. 15. Accordingly, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused/respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and it accordingly acquitted the accused. 16. Since the prosecution failed to discharge its onus we are in full agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court. Nothing substantial could be argued by learned State Counsel so as to warrant any interference in the judgment passed by trial court. Accordingly, application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Government Appeal No. 220/2024 17. Since, we have declined to grant leave to appeal, accordingly, this Government Appeal is also dismissed.