St at e of Ut t arakhand v. Him anshu

Mr. K.S. Bora, Deput y Advocat e General, wit h Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder, for t he St at e/ appellant . J U D G M E N T H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. H o n ’ b l e Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J. ( Pe r : H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) For t he reasons indicat ed t he delay condonat ion applicat ion ( I A/ 1/ 2025) , t he sam e allowed. Delay of 45 days in filing t his appeal is condoned.

2. By t his pet it ion under Sect ion 419( 3) of BNSS, St at e/ pet it ioner is seeking t o appeal against t he j udgm ent and order dat ed 31.7.2024, passed by Special Judge ( POCSO Act ) / Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Special Sessions Trial No. 04/ 2024, t hereby acquit t ing t he respondent from t he charges fram ed against him for t he offences punishable under Sect ion 363, 376 ( 2) ( n) I PC and Sect ion 6( 1) / 5( l) of POCSO Act . 1

3. We have heard learned St at e Counsel and perused t he im pugned j udgm ent and order.

4. I n t he present case, as we gat her from t he im pugned j udgm ent , t he prosecut rix ( PW- 1) , aged m ore t han 17 years but less t han 18 years at t he relevant t im e, in her deposit ion before Trial Court , cat egorically st at ed t hat she had left her house on her own accord aft er being scolded by her fat her when she found engaged in a conversat ion over an unident ified m obile phone and had ret urned on her own t he next day. She st at ed t hat t he accused had not kidnapped her nor est ablished any sexual relat ions wit h her. She furt her explained t hat t he st at em ent under Sect ion 164 CrPC, in which she had alleged ot herwise, was m ade on t he insist ence of her fam ily m em bers. The t est im ony of PW- 1 furt her corroborat ed by t he st at em ent s of her fat her ( PW- 4) and m ot her ( PW- 6) , bot h of whom adm it t ed t hat t he girl had left t he house when she was reprim anded by her fat her on being found conversing on an unident ified m obile phone and ret urned t he next day.

5. I t is set t led law t hat in a case involving sexual assault , t he t est im ony of t he prosecut rix, if found t o be credible and t rust wort hy, is sufficient t o sust ain convict ion. However, in t he present case, t he prosecut rix has unequivocally denied t he occurrence of any such incident and st at ed t hat no sexual relat ions were est ablished bet ween her and t he accused. I n her cross- exam inat ion by t he prosecut ion, t he prosecut rix rem ained firm on her st at em ent t hat she was neit her kidnapped nor raped by t he accused, and t hat her 2 earlier st at em ent under Sect ion 164 CrPC was m ade under pressure.

6. Considering all t hese aspect s of t he m at t er and aft er proper analysis of t he evidence, t he Trial Court held t hat foundat ional fact s necessary in t he present case have not been laid or est ablished beyond reasonable doubt by t he prosecut ion and acquit t ed t he accused of t he charges leveled against him .

7. We do not find any ground t o int erfere wit h t he well reasoned j udgm ent passed by t he Trial Court . I n t he case of Ram anand Yadav Vs. Prabhunat Jha, report ed as ( 2003) 12 SCC 606, t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court laid down t he rat io t hat t he golden t hread which runs t hrough t he web of adm inist rat ion of t he Just ice in crim inal cases is t hat , if t wo views are possible on t he evidence adduced in t he case, one point ing t o t he guilt of t he accused and t he ot her t o his innocence, t he view which is favourable t o t he accused should be adopt ed. The param ount considerat ion of t he Court is t o ensure t hat m iscarriage of j ust ice is prevent ed. A m iscarriage of j ust ice which m ay arise from acquit t al of t he guilt y is no less t han from t he convict ion of an innocent .

8. For t he reasons recorded above, leave t o appeal refused. Leave pet it ion is dism issed. Governm ent appeal also st ands dism issed accordingly. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 2 9 .7 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503 , postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F 3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR 3