Anil Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

PW3 Smt. Asha Sati is the mother of the victim, who has stated that the victim’s date of birth was 02.02.1992, she was studying in class 10th at the time of occurrence, the occurrence is of 02.02.2006. On 03 of February at 8.00 P.M., she got a phone call of her brother-in-law that the victim was missing since last night. On foot, she reached her house at Village Thirpak at 11.00 P.M., where her father-in-law informed that at 10 P.M. in the night when he had come out to answer the call of nature, the victim was not in her room. On

04.02.2006, the sister and father of the appellant/accused also came to their house and informed that his son was also missing since last night and that his son has taken away the victim. The matter was accordingly reported in the police. She has stated that the victim had done high school. They came to know that on the night of 6th/7th, the appellant and the victim had stayed at Janki Hotel in Haridwar. Subsequently, they went Delhi. Upon learning this, my husband and my brother, Shiv Prasad, went Haridwar and thereafter Delhi to search them and then both the petitioner and the victim were recovered from Delhi 3 and were handed over to the Patwari. The accused, Annu, is present in court today, PW3 Smt. Asha Sati identified him.

7. PW4 Shiv Prasad who is uncle (Mama) of the victim has also supported the contents of prosecution about recovery of the victim stating thereby that on 7th February, he along with his brother-in-law Haridutt went Haridwar to search for the victim and the accused, there, they received information that the victim and the accused had gone to the residence of one Mukesh in Delhi. On 9th February, at around 4:00 to 4:30 in the afternoon, we found both the victim and the accused with Mukesh at Fatehpuri, Delhi. We stayed in Delhi that night with them. On the next day, we brought both of them back and handed them over to the Patwari at Magroli.

8. PW5 Anil Bhandari and PW6 Mukesh Lal did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.

9. PW7 Dr. Manvander Singh Bhandari is the person, who conducted the x-ray on the person of the victim and prepared the medical examination of the victim.

10. PW8 Mr. M.L. Khatri, who is the Principal of the Government Inter College, Thirpak, Chamoli. He has brought the T.R.C. register in the court, wherein the date of birth of the victim was mentioned as 02.02.1992.

11. PW9 Mr. Shishpal, who has stated that he was the Manger of Hotel Jhanvi Haridwar, he has merely stated that on

03.02.2006, the appellant/accused along with victim stayed in his hotel and had vacated the same in the morning of

04.02.2006. 4

12. PW10 Mr. Vishambhar Dutt Thapiyal, Patwali Tehsil Mangroli, Karanprayag, District Chamoli. He is the person, who conducted examination and submitted chargesheet in the court.

13. After prosecution evidence, the statement of appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they stated that he did not commit any offence and was falsely implicated.

14. I have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant/accused as well as learned State counsel and have carefully gone through the entire material available on record.

15. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing appellant/accused has contended that the present case is one of false implication, and that the appellant/accused has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that there was no evidence of recovery of the victim in the company of the appellant/accused from Delhi, and the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is thus urged that the learned trial court has erred in law and on facts in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused.

16. It was argued on the behalf of accused that the victim was major at the time of the incident. However, the fact of the matter is that the victim was only 14 years of the age at the time of occurrence. In order to prove this fact PW2 Hari Dutt, PW3 Smt. Asha Sati were examined, who have deposed about the age of the victim. PW8 M.L. Kharti, the Principal of the first school attended was also examined. PW8 Mr. M.L. 5 Khatri has clearly stated that the date of birth of the victim in the school register is entered as 02.02.1992 and thus at the time of occurrence, she was about 14 years of age. Thus, this argument advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant is liable to be discarded.

17. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, while supporting the judgment passed by the trial court, has submitted that a total ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Based on their oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution successfully proved its case, and accordingly, the trial court rightly recorded the findings of conviction. Hence, there is hardly any scope for interference in the impugned judgment.

18. From the evidence of Radiologist, it is also clear that even if two years age benefit is given on either side even then on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, it is undisputedly proved that the victim was 14 years of age at the time of occurrence and in no manner it can be said that she was 18 years of age.

19. The medical examination of the victim was also got done by the Investigating Officer.

20. From the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is fully proved that in the night of 02.02.2006, the appellant/accused had enticed away the victim from the lawful custody of her guardians. The evidences of PW2 Hari Dutt Sati and PW4 Shiv Prasad proved the recovery of the victim from Delhi. The fact regarding the victim being minor was 6 conclusively proved through medical evidence and the school register. Since victim had committed suicide on 16.02.2006, therefore, non-examination of victim would not help the defence in any manner. Accordingly, the trial court rightly concluded that the offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C. was clearly made out against the appellant/accused.

21. Even otherwise, the prosecution witnesses were subjected to thorough and lengthy cross-examination by the defence counsel; however, nothing material could be elicited from their testimony to discredit or create any doubt regarding their veracity. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent, consistent, and trustworthy. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve or cast suspicion upon their depositions.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment rendered by the learned trial court suffers from no illegality or procedural irregularity. The appeal filed by the appellant/accused lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and order dated 09.02.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar) in Sessions Trial No.07 of 2006 ‘State vs. Annu @ Anil’ is affirmed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The appellant/accused shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court. It is also pertinent to note that although a bailable warrant was issued by this court through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, the same could not be executed as per a report indicating that the appellant was admitted to a Rehabilitation Centre, Dehradun. 7

23. A copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for forthwith compliance alongwith the Trial Court Record.

24. This Court places on record its appreciation for the best assistance rendered by Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned Amicus Curiae in deciding this long-pending criminal appeal.

26.06.2025 (Pankaj Purohit, J.) Mamta 8