OJ KUMAR TIWARI AND JUSTICE SHRI ASHISH NAITHANI State of Uttarakhand v. Janki Prasad

Judgment

(per Shri Ashish Naithani, J.) DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION As per the application, there is a delay of 64 days in preferring this Government Appeal.

2. In view of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, and on being 1 Leave to Government Appeal No. 7 of 2021 in Government Appeal No.2 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs Janki Prasad Ashish Naithani J. satisfied with the same, we allow the application and condone the delay. LEAVE TO GOVERNMENT APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2021

3. By this application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State to challenge judgment dated

22.09.2020 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2018, State v. Janki Prasad, whereby the accused- respondent Janki Prasad was acquitted of the charges under Sections 342, 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 read with 4 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

4. The brief facts of the prosecution story, as

emanating from the FIR dated 11.08.2018, are that a 13-year-old daughter of the complainant was returning from the market on 06.08.2018 when she was allegedly asked by the accused Janki Prasad to fetch a metal cup (Lota) from his house. It is alleged that as soon as the victim entered the house, the 2 Leave to Government Appeal No. 7 of 2021 in Government Appeal No.2 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs Janki Prasad Ashish Naithani J. accused grabbed her by the waist, laid her on the bed, and attempted to commit rape.

5. The State’s case further alleges that the victim freed herself by biting the hand of the accused and escaped from the house. The incident was subsequently reported to the family members, and an FIR was lodged after a delay, as the complainant was in Delhi for his father's medical treatment.

6. During the course of investigation, the case was registered as Crime No. 34/2018 under Sections 342/376/511 of IPC and initially under Section 6/18 of the POCSO Act, which was later amended to Sections 3 read with 4 of the POCSO Act.

7. A charge-sheet was filed, and charges were framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. After evaluating the entire evidence on record, the Learned District and Session Judge, Chamoli, passed the impugned order of acquittal dated 22.09.2020. The trial court's reasoning for acquittal was based on several substantive grounds, 3 Leave to Government Appeal No. 7 of 2021 in Government Appeal No.2 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs Janki Prasad Ashish Naithani J. which merit careful examination in the context of this application for leave to appeal.

9. The learned trial court, while acquitting the accused, highlighted serious infirmities prosecution case. A crucial aspect noted was the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which materially undermined the State’s version. Though an explanation was offered that the complainant was in Delhi for his father’s treatment, the trial court found such justification insufficient to dispel the adverse inference arising from the delay.

10. The court further highlighted glaring inconsistencies in the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC and her testimony during the trial. These contradictions raised doubts about the reliability of her account. Additionally, the medical evidence failed to support her version that she had bitten the hand of the accused while resisting, as no such injury was noted in the medical report. This mismatch between medical and oral evidence further weakened the State’s case. 4 Leave to Government Appeal No. 7 of 2021 in Government Appeal No.2 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs Janki Prasad Ashish Naithani J.

11. Another crucial lapse was the State’s failure examine independent witnesses such as Kheemanand Kuniyal and his daughter, whose testimony could have been vital. The court also noted the absence of proof that the victim had raised a hue and cry or resisted the alleged assault in a manner expected in such circumstances. Taken together, the incomplete chain of evidence and the lack of credibility in witness testimonies led the trial court to conclude that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

12. We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the Appellant State as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent, and have carefully perused the record.

13. The learned A.G.A. for the State has urged that the trial court completely overlooked glaring facts that established the involvement of the accused- respondent in the alleged crime.

14. It is contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was trustworthy and sufficient to 5 Leave to Government Appeal No. 7 of 2021 in Government Appeal No.2 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs Janki Prasad Ashish Naithani J. establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

15. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the trial court erred in law by testing the prosecution evidence on unwarranted yardsticks and failed to appreciate that the essential ingredients of the charged offences stood established against the accused-respondent.

16. Specifically, the learned counsel for the State contends that the trial court erred by over- emphasizing the delay in lodging the FIR, which is common in cases under Section 376 of the IPC due to the sensitive nature of such allegations and the trauma experienced by victims. It was argued that trivial discrepancies in the victim's statements were wrongly treated as major contradictions by the trial court.

17. It is pertinent to note that Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. provides that no appeal shall lie from an order of acquittal except with the leave of the High Court, thereby vesting in the Court a discretionary 6 Leave to Government Appeal No. 7 of 2021 in Government Appeal No.2 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs Janki Prasad Ashish Naithani J. power to grant or refuse such leave. Such discretion, however, must be exercised judiciously and accordance with settled principles.

18. The legal position is well established that leave to appeal may be granted only where the view taken by trial court appears manifestly unreasonable, legally erroneous, or based on a perverse appreciation of evidence. Leave may also be warranted where substantial questions of law arise. Conversely, where the trial court’s decision rests on a plausible and reasoned appreciation of evidence, leave ought ordinarily to be declined, even if an alternative view is also possible.

19. Upon careful examination of the impugned judgment and the grounds urged in this application, this court finds that the trial court has conducted a thorough and methodical analysis of the evidence on record. The grounds for acquittal identified by the trial court are neither frivolous nor based on any misappreciation of law or evidence. 7 Leave to Government Appeal No. 7 of 2021 in Government Appeal No.2 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs Janki Prasad Ashish Naithani J.

20. The delay in lodging the FIR, while not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case in all circumstances, assumes significance considered alongside other infirmities in the case. The trial court's observation regarding this delay cannot be characterized as unreasonable, particularly when the explanation offered by the prosecution was found to be inadequate.

21. The material discrepancies noted by the trial court between the victim's various statements are not merely trivial inconsistencies as contended by the appellant State. These discrepancies go to the root of the State’s case and raise legitimate doubts about the reliability of the victim's testimony. The trial court was well within its jurisdiction to treat these inconsistencies as significant factors affecting the credibility of the prosecution case.

22. The absence of corroborative medical evidence regarding the alleged bite marks particularly significant. While medical evidence may not always be available in cases of sexual assault, 8 Leave to Government Appeal No. 7 of 2021 in Government Appeal No.2 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs Janki Prasad Ashish Naithani J. when a specific claim is made about physical resistance resulting in injury to the accused, the absence of corresponding medical evidence becomes material to the court's assessment of credibility.

23. The State’s failure to examine key witnesses, particularly Kheemanand Kuniyal, who was mentioned as an independent witness, represents a serious gap in the evidentiary chain. The State has not offered any satisfactory explanation for this omission, and the trial court was justified in treating this as a factor weakening the prosecution case.

24. Most importantly, the trial court's overall assessment that the State failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt appears to be based on a cumulative evaluation of all these factors rather than any single infirmity. This holistic approach to evidence evaluation is consistent with established principles of criminal jurisprudence.

25. The learned State's counsel contentions, while vigorously urged, do not demonstrate any 9 Leave to Government Appeal No. 7 of 2021 in Government Appeal No.2 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs Janki Prasad Ashish Naithani J. patent error of law or fact in the trial court's approach. The arguments essentially seek a re- appreciation of evidence, which is not the purpose of seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of CrPC. The grounds urged do not establish that the trial court's view was clearly unreasonable or perverse.

26. The arguments of the State counsel are that delay in FIR is common in sexual assault cases, while legally sound as a general proposition, cannot override the specific factual matrix of this case where the trial court found the explanation for delay to be inadequate when considered alongside evidence. Similarly, characterization discrepancies as "trivial" appears to be an oversimplification of material inconsistencies that legitimately affected the credibility assessment. ORDER After careful consideration of the impugned judgment, the grounds urged in the application, and the applicable legal principles, this court finds that the trial court has arrived at its conclusion of 10 Leave to Government Appeal No. 7 of 2021 in Government Appeal No.2 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs Janki Prasad Ashish Naithani J. acquittal through a reasonable and methodical evaluation of the evidence on record. The judgment reflects a proper application of the burden of proof in criminal cases and an appropriate appreciation of the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Therefore, the Special Leave to Appeal Application is, accordingly, dismissed. Since we have declined to grant leave, accordingly, the Government Appeal is also dismissed. No costs. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

18.08.2025

18.08.2025 Akash AKASH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef735 18c148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224c89 1823fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7, cn=AKASH 11 Leave to Government Appeal No. 7 of 2021 in Government Appeal No.2 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs Janki Prasad Ashish Naithani J.