SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Decided On: 02.06.2017 vs Virender Singh @ Golu And Others on 2 June, 2017


Cr. Appeal No.: 282 of 2015.

Reserved On : 17.04.2017.


Decided on: 02.06.2017.
State of Himachal Pradesh ….Appellant.


Virender Singh @ Golu and others … Respondents.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the appellant : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. AG with
Mr. Vikram Thakur, Dy. AG.

For the respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Jamuna Pathik,

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

By way of this appeal, the State has challenged the

judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Hamirpur, Camp at Barsar, in Sessions Trial No. 22 of

2013, dated 14.01.2015, vide which, learned Trial Court has

acquitted the present respondents for commission of offences

punishable under Section 363, 376D and 506 read with

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).


Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on

09.05.2013, complainant/prosecutrix moved an application


(Ext. PW1/A) that she was a permanent resident of village

Biar and was a student of B.A. 1st year in Government

College, Barsar and accused Virender @ Golu studied with her

up to 10+2 class and he alongwith other accused, namely,

Bhupinder Singh and Ankush (Lala) were residents of

Nanawan. As per complainant, she used to go to college by

bus and in case she missed the bus, then she used to catch

the bus from Nanawan. Accused were unemployed and

vagabonds, who often were found sitting idle on Biar bridge.

They used to pass indecent remarks and comments upon the

complainant which she used to ignore. In the month of

November/December, 2012, accused Virender Singh asked

the complainant for mobile number of one Renu, which was

refused by the complainant. As a result of this, accused

Virender Singh started nursing grudge against the

complainant. On 26.03.2013, when she was studying in the

room of her house, at around 11:30 p.m., when she went to

the bathroom and switched on the light after opening the

door, she found accused Virender there. On inquiry as to

what he was doing there, accused caught hold of complainant

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

and in the meantime, other accused who were hiding near

around also reached there. Accused Virender Singh gagged


the mouth of complainant and thereafter all the accused lifted

the complainant and took her to Biar ‘khud’. There accused

Virender Singh attempted to commit wrong act with her but

she resisted. However despite her resistance, accused

Virender Singh forcibly committed sexual intercourse with

her, as a result of which, she became unconscious. When the

complainant gained conscious, she found herself lying naked

at the spot. Accused Bhupinder was carrying a torch and

accused Ankush was in possession of a mobile phone whereas

accused Virender Singh, who was wearing a white shawl was

carrying a ‘Darat’. When the complainant asked the accused

as to what enmity they had with her, accused Ankush replied

that they had no enmity with her but they love her. Thereafter

complainant wore her clothes and accused asked her to go

straight to her house and also threatened her that in case she

disclosed the incident to anyone, her sister will also meet the

same fate at same place and they will also kidnap her brother.

On the said threatening, out of fear, complainant did not

disclose the incident to anyone. Thereafter on 30.03.2013,

when complainant alighted from a private bus at Nanawan

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

and was on her way to her house, accused met her and asked

her to meet them at the same place again and threatened her


that in case she did not come, they would make public her

video clip which was prepared by them. Whenever accused

used to meet the complainant, they used to harass her on

said count, however, the complainant did not succumb to

said pressure. Further as per the prosecution, mother of the

complainant on 07.05.2013 came to know about some

indecent video clip of the complainant, however, when she

inquired about the said fact from the complainant, on account

of threats and fear of accused, nothing was disclosed to her

by the complainant. Thereafter on 08.05.2013, her ‘Mausi’

Vishav Sharma visited their house and on her asking, the

entire incident was disclosed by the complainant to her

‘Mausi’. Thereafter complainant filed application Ext. PW1/A

to the police, on the basis of which, FIR Ext. PW17/A was

registered. The matter was investigated by SI Vikram Singh.

Prosecutrix was medically examined at CHC Barsar vide MLC

Ext. PW19/B. Videography of the statements of Santosh

Kumari, Kamla Devi and Vishav Sharma under Section 161 of

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short referred as

‘Cr.P.C’) alongwith supplementary statement of prosecutrix

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

was conducted. Accused persons were arrested on the same

day. Their mobile phones were seized and taken into


possession. They were also subjected to medical examination.

Prosecutrix identified the spot from where she was lifted and

where the alleged wrong act was committed upon her. On the

basis of disclosure statement Ext. PW11/A made by accused

Virender Singh, a white shawl and a ‘Darat’ were recovered by

the police. Mobile phones of the accused were sent to CFSL,

Hyderabad. Report of FSL was obtained which is Ext.

PW10/J. Statement of witnesses were recorded as per their

version. Statement of prosecutrix was also recorded under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st

Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur.

3. After the completion of the investigation, challan

was filed in the Court and as a prima-facie case was found

against the accused, they were charged for commission of

offences punishable under Sections 363, 376D and 506 read

with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and

claimed trial.

4. Learned trial Court vide its judgment under

challenge acquitted all the accused of the charges framed

against them by holding that the story propounded by the

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

complainant of sexual assault on her alongwith her

kidnapping and threatening given to her by accused persons


appeared to be a false and concocted one. Learned trial Court

held that statement of complainant (PW1) did not appear to be

cogent, reliable and trustworthy. As per learned trial Court

her statement did not inspire confidence. It was held by

learned trial Court that the prosecution had failed to establish

the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

5. r Feeling aggrieved by the judgment so passed by

learned trial Court, the State has filed this appeal.

6. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate

General as well as Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned senior counsel

appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the

records of the case as well as the judgment passed by learned

trial Court.

7. In the present case, the respondents/accused

already have the benefit of a judgment of acquittal passed in

their favour by the learned trial Court. It has been held by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ankoos and Others

versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 94

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

“12. This Court has, time and again, dealt with the
scope of exercise of power by the Appellate Court
against judgment of acquittal under Sections
378 and 386, Cr.P.C. It has been repeatedly held


that if two views are possible, the Appellate Court
should not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of
acquittal. This Court has laid down that Appellate

Court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal
because another view is possible to be taken. It is
not necessary to multiply the decisions on the
subject and reference to a later decision of this

Court in Ghurey Lal v. State Of Uttar
Pradesh1 shall suffice wherein this Court
considered a long line of cases and held thus :
(SCC p.477, paras 69 -70)

“69. The following principles emerge from the
cases above:

1. The appellate court may review the
evidence in appeals against acquittal under

Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is
wide and the appellate court can reappreciate

the entire evidence on record. It can review the
trial court’s conclusion with respect to both

facts and law.

2. The accused is presumed innocent until

proven guilty. The accused possessed this
presumption when (2008) 10 SCC 450 he was
before the trial court. The trial court’s acquittal
bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

3. Due or proper weight and consideration
must be given to the trial court’s decision. This
is especially true when a witness’ credibility is
at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

take a different view of the evidence. There
must also be substantial and compelling
reasons for holding that the trial court was



70. In light of the above, the High Court and
other appellate courts should follow the well-
settled principles crystallised by number of

judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise
disturb the trial court’s acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or

otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it
has “very substantial and compelling reasons”
for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the

appellate court would have “very substantial

and compelling reasons” to discard the trial
court’s decision. “Very substantial and
compelling reasons” exist when:

(i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard

to the facts is palpably wrong;

(ii) The trial court’s decision was based on
an erroneous view of law;

(iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to
result in “grave miscarriage of justice”;

(iv) The entire approach of the trial court in
dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

(v) The trial court’s judgment was

manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
(vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence

or misread the material evidence or has ignored
material documents like dying
declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.

(vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

2. The appellate court must always give
proper weight and consideration to the findings
of the trial court.


3. If two reasonable views can be reached-

-one that leads to acquittal, the other to
conviction–the High Courts/appellate courts
must rule in favour of the accused.”

8. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kahan

Chand, 2016 (1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 576, a Coordinate

Bench of this Court has held as under

“19. The accused has had the advantage of
having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping

in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex

Court in Mohamed Ankoos and others versus
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that
the Court below has not correctly appreciated the

evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused
has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for

interference is called for. The present appeal is
dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the

accused are discharged.”

9. Therefore, keeping in view the principles laid down

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the

abovementioned judgments, we will proceed to adjudicate

upon in the present appeal.

10. The prosecutrix entered the witness box as PW1,

whereas her mother Santosh Kumari entered the witness box

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

as PW2. Besides them, aunt of the prosecutrix (Mausi), Smt.

Vishav Sharma entered the witness box as PW3. Prosecutrix


(PW1) deposed in the Court that in May, 2013, she had

completed her B.A. 1st year. She deposed that accused

Virender @ Golu was her class fellow and they had done their

10+2 from the same school. She further deposed that she

knew other accused who were residents of village Nanawan,

Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur. She further deposed that

she used to commute from her village to Barsar by bus and

normally, she used to board bus from her village Biar, but at

times from village Nanawan also. She deposed that accused

were unemployed and vagabonds and were usually found

sitting idle at Biar bridge. She deposed that accused used to

pass indecent remarks and comments upon her. She deposed

that in November/December, 2012, accused Virender

inquired Cell Number of a girl named Renu from her who was

friend of her sister and was known to her, but she refused to

divulge the Cell number of said Renu. She deposed that on

account of this, accused Virender started nursing grudge

against her. On 26.03.2013, she was studying at her home

and at about 11:30 p.m. When she went to bathroom, as she

opened the door of the same and switched on the light, she

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

saw accused Virender present there. She asked him as to

what he was doing there and attempted to run away but


accused caught hold of her and he gagged her mouth. She

further deposed that in the meantime, other accused also

joined him and they lifted her and forcibly took her to Biar

‘Khad’. She further deposed that accused Bhupender Singh

and Ankush caught hold of her arms and legs and accused

Virender attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her.

She further deposed that accused Ankush and Virender

forcibly removed her ‘salwar’ and accused Virender forcibly

committed sexually intercourse with her and thereafter she

fell unconscious. As per prosecutrix when she gained her

conscious, she found herself naked and she also found that

accused Bhupender had switched on a Torch whereas

accused Ankush was having a Cell Phone in his hand.

According to her, accused Virender was standing on one side

wearing a white coloured shawl and was holding a ‘Draat’ in

his hand. She deposed that when she asked the accused as to

what enmity they had with her, accused Ankush said that

there was no enmity, but they loved her. As per prosecutrix,

she thereafter put on her clothes and accused persons

threatened her with dire consequences and asked her to go to

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

home straight away and not to disclose the incident to

anyone, otherwise they will harm her siblings. The accused


also threatened that her sister would also meet the same fate.

According to prosecutrix, she did not disclose the said

incident to anyone out of fear. She further deposed that on

30.03.2013, when she was returning home after appearing in

Economics examination, accused met her at Village Nanawan

and asked her to meet them at the same place, failing which,

they would make public her video clipping. She further

deposed that she did not succumb to the said threats of the

accused. She further deposed that on 07.05.2013, her mother

heard rumours about a video clip of her and when her mother

confronted her about this, she did not disclose anything to

her mother out of fear. She deposed that on 08.05.2013, her

maternal aunt Vishav Sharma came to meet her, to whom she

disclosed the entire incident including threats given to her by

the accused. She stated that at that time her mother as well

as Ward Member Kamla Devi were also present. She deposed

that thereafter the matter was reported by her mother and

Kamla Devi to Naresh Katna, Up Pradhan, Gram Panchayat

Nanawan, on 09.05.2013 and on the same evening, she filed a

complaint at Police Station Barsar, on the basis of which, FIR

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

was lodged. In her cross examination though this witness

denied that there were houses adjoining to her house but self


stated that there were two houses nearby. She deposed that

these houses were of her maternal aunt and one Prakash

Chand. She admitted that houses of Ganga Ram, Prem Chand

and Gian Chand were adjoining to her house. She stated that

the place of occurrence at Biar ‘Khud’ was about 400 meters

from her house. She admitted that there is a Primary Health

Centre and cluster of Jhugies of Biharis at Biar ‘Khud’. She

also admitted that path leading from her house to Biar ‘Khud’

is narrow and rough having bushes on both sides. She

deposed that she did not remember the manner in which she

was lifted and taken to Biar ‘Khud’ by the accused persons,

however, she made efforts to rescue and free herself from the

clutches of accused persons. Suggestions given to her by the

defence that she was having an affair with accused Virender

as well as physical relations with him were however denied by

her. She admitted the suggestion that her maternal aunt i.e.

Vishav Sharma was a police Constable and was posted at

Mandi. She admitted the suggestion that complaint Ext.

PW1/A was written by her in the presence of her mother

Santosh Kumari and maternal aunt Vishav Sharma. She

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

admitted the suggestion that after her mother came to know

about the rumours of her video clip went to house of Pradhan


alongwith Kamla Devi. She feigned ignorance that as to

whether her mother wanted amicable settlement on account

of mistake committed by her (prosecutrix). She admitted the

suggestion that she would not have reported the matter, had

there been no rumour about her obscene video clip and CD.

11. Mother of the prosecutrix Santosh Kumari entered

the witness box as PW2 and deposed that in the month of

March, 2013, her daughter was student of B.A. 1st year at

Govt. Degree College, Barsar and on 07.05.2013, she came to

know from her relatives that a rumour was going around that

some obscene video clip of her daughter (peosecutrix) was in

circulation and when she confronted the prosecutrix qua the

same, she refused about any such incident. She further

stated that prosecutrix kept refusing despite her repeated

asking and thereafter she disclosed this fact to her sister

Vishav Sharma, who was living in Mandi and she came to her

house on 08.05.2013 and when they again confronted the

prosecutrix about the matter, she disclosed the entire incident

which took place on 26.03.2013. This witness further stated

that after this she disclosed the entire incident to her

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

husband, who used to work at Jammu and he advised her to

take the matter to Pradhan of the local Panchayat. She


deposed that on 09.05.2013, she alongwith Ward Member

Kamla Devi met Up Pradhan Naresh Katna and disclosed the

incident to him. She deposed that accused persons and

prosecutrix were called by Up Pradhan, however, accused

persons denied their involvement in the matter. In her cross

examination, she admitted that she had approached the Up

Pradhan Naresh Katna with the stand that mistake had been

committed by the children and the matter should be amicably

resolved. She denied that her sister Vishav Sharma was not

ready for any amicable settlement and it was on her behest,

that prosecutrix filed complaint against the accused on false

allegations. This witness also admitted the suggestion that all

the accused persons were residents of village Nanwan, which

was at a distance of ½ kms from their village.

12. PW 3, Smt. Vishav Sharma, aunt (Mausi) of the

prosecutrix, deposed before the Court that she was posted as

lady Constable at Police Line, Mandi. On 07.05.2013, at 7:30

p.m. she received a telephonic call from her elder sister

Santosh Kumari that there were rumours that obscene video

clip of her daughter i.e. prosecutrix was in circulation and

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

prosecutrix was not disclosing anything and in these

circumstances, she was called by her sister to ascertain the


truth. She further deposed that on 08.05.2013, she came to

village Biar and met her sister and niece and thereafter, she

inquired about the rumours from the prosecutrix, on which,

the prosecutrix disclosed the entire incident which took place

on 26.03.2013. In her cross examination, this witness

admitted that after the disclosure of facts to her by

prosecutrix on 08.05.2013, matter was not immediately

reported to the Police. She denied that prosecutrix had

disclosed to her about her love affair and physical relations

with accused Virender. She denied that because of these

reasons, she went to her parental house without reporting the

matter to the police and on next day went to Police Station

from her parents’ house.

13. Ward Member Kamla Devi entered the witness box

as PW4 and she stated that on 08.05.2013, in between 3:00-

4:00 p.m., she happened to visit the house of Santosh Kumari

i.e. mother of prosecutrix, who told her that there were

rumours about obscene video clip of the prosecutrix in

circulation. She deposed that prosecutrix was confronted with

said facts but she denied them. She further stated that on the

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

same night, at about 7:00-8:00 p.m., she was called again to

her house by Santosh Kumari and when she reached there,


she met Santosh Kumari and her sister Vishav Sharma. She

stated that prosecutrix was again asked about the rumours,

on which, she disclosed the entire incident. This witness

further deposed that thereafter she advised Santosh Kumari

to seek assistance from Pradhan. This witness further

deposed that on 09.05.2013, she took Santosh Kumari to Up

Pradhan Naresh Katna and after the incident was narrated to

him, he called the accused persons in the house of accused

Ankush Katna, but the accused denied their involvement in

the matter. In her cross examination, this witness stated that

her house was situated at a distance of 100 meters from the

house of prosecutrix and there were 6-7 houses in between

her house and house of prosecutrix.

14. Up Pradhan Naresh Chand entered the witness

box as PW7 and stated that on 08.05.2013, he received a

telephonic call from Santosh Kumari that she wanted to meet

him urgently. He deposed that thereafter he met her at Kalka

Mata Temple, Tikkar Rajputan, where Santosh Kumari met

him alongwith her daughter (prosecutrix), her sister Vishav

Sharma and Ward Member Kamla Devi and they told him that

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

they had heard about obscene video clip of prosecutrix in

circulation and he was asked to call the accused to ascertain


this fact. He further stated that on 09.05.2013, he called the

accused persons in his house but they denied their

involvement in the matter. This witness further stated that

accused Virender during the course of conversation disclosed

to him that on 07.05.2013, at about 10:30 a.m., he (Virender)

received a call from the prosecutrix that he (Virender) was

being falsely implicated by her relatives and she had asked

him to run away. This witness further deposed that mother of

the prosecutrix wanted amicable settlement of the matter in

the Panchayat and she was not interested to report the matter

to the Police. He deposed that thereafter he called mother of

prosecutrix to his office for taking the matter before

Panchayat quorum, but she did not appear before the

Panchayat. Records demonstrate that this witness was

declared as a hostile witness and was cross examined at

length by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. In his cross

examination by Assistant Public Prosecutor he again

reiterated that mother of prosecutrix was not interested to

take the matter to the police. He also admitted that one of the

accused was his real nephew. In his cross examination by

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

learned defence counsel he admitted it to be correct that

accused Virender and prosecutrix used to roam around



15. Dr. Priyanka Sharma, entered the witness box as

PW19 and she proved on record MLC Ext. PW19/B and she

stated that in her opinion there were no signs of recent

vaginal penetration and there was no sign of general physical

injuries but possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled

out in the recent past. In her cross examination, she could

not opine that whether prosecutrix was habitual of sexual


16. Investigating Officer SI Vikram Singh, entered the

witness box as PW 20. In his cross examination he admitted

the suggestion that prosecutrix at the time of filing of

complaint was accompanied by her mother and maternal aunt

Vishav Sharma. He also admitted that prosecutrix filed the

complaint regarding the incident after 1 ½ months and during

the said period, prosecutrix was attending her college

regularly. He also admitted that Forensic examination of Cell

Phones of the accused did not reveal of any video clip of the


03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

17. In our considered view, what is apparent from the

testimony of the prosecution witnesses is that the mother of


the prosecutrix somewhere in the month of May, 2013 heard

rumours about an obscene video clip of the prosecutrix being

in circulation. She confronted the prosecutrix with the said

rumours but prosecutrix denied the same. In this

background, she called her sister PW3 Vishav Sharma, who

was serving as a Constable in Police and was posted at Mandi

and when r she (Vishav Sharma, PW3) confronted the

prosecutrix about the matter, she disclosed to her and her

mother Santosh Kumari about her alleged abduction by the

accused on the night of 26th March, 2013 from her house and

thereafter accused Virender having sexually molested her at

Biar bridge.

18. Now it is a matter of record and also evident from

the testimony of Investigating Officer, PW20 SI Vikram Singh

that forensic examination of mobile phones of the accused

had demonstrated that there was no obscene video clip of the

prosecutrix recorded in the said mobile phones.

19. The alleged incident as per the prosecutrix had

taken place in the night of 26th March, 2013. According to

her, when on the alleged night at about 11:30 p.m. she went

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

to bathroom and as soon as she switched on the light of

bathroom, she saw accused Virender there and when she


asked him as to what was he doing there and tried to run

away, she was caught hold by accused Virender and her

mouth was gagged and in the meanwhile, other accused

persons also reached there and they lifted her to Biar bridge,

where she was physically molested by accused Virender. In

our considered view, the version which has been given by the

prosecutrix about the alleged happening of the incident is

highly unbelievable. It is difficult to believe that the

prosecutrix was lifted from inside of her own house i.e. from

the bathroom of her house and thereafter taken to a bridge,

which admittedly was 400 metres away from the house of

prosecutrix and none came to know about the alleged incident

including the mother of the prosecutrix, who was very much

present in the house as it is not the case of the prosecutrix

that on the fateful night, she was alone in the house. It is

apparent and evident from evidence on record that it is not as

if the house of prosecutrix was at an isolated place. Therefore,

also it is highly unbelievable that no one came to know that a

girl was lifted from her house by three persons, especially

when prosecutrix herself has stated that she was making

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

efforts to escape herself from the clutches of the accused. The

contention of the prosecutrix that she did not narrate the


alleged incident to anyone out of fear and out of threatenings

which were given to her by the accused also does not inspires

confidence. It is a matter of record that disclosure of her being

abducted and subjected to sexual molestation after 1 ½

months after her abduction may be was not a voluntary act of

the prosecutrix. It is a matter of record that when the

prosecutrix was initially confronted by her mother that there

were rumours to the effect that an obscene video clip of her

was in circulation, she repeatedly refused these allegations. It

is also a matter of record that alleged incident of her being

abducted and sexually molested came into existence only

after her alleged disclosure of the said happening to her

‘Mausi’ who incidentally happens to be a constable in the

police. In this background, this possibility cannot be ruled out

that when the mother of the prosecutrix heard rumours about

the obscene video clipping of her daughter making rounds

and the prosecutrix refuted the same and thereafter her

mother calling her sister to inquire from the prosecutrix, as

story was concocted to frame the accused. In fact, defence of

the accused especially that of Virender is not that they were

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

strangers to the prosecutrix. It is the case of accused Virender

that he was having an affair with the prosecutrix and they


were also having physical relations with each other. Now a

perusal of the statement of mother of the prosecutrix

demonstrates that on more than one occasion she stated that

she was interested in amicable settlement of the matter rather

than reporting the same to the police. This fact has also come

out in the deposition of other prosecution witnesses. In this

background, the possibility of something else happening

instead of the alleged occurrences, which were made the basis

of the FIR cannot be ruled out. It is pertinent to mention this

fact also that even the place where the prosecutrix was

allegedly raped by accused Virender was not a secluded place

as there were labourers living in ‘Jhugies’. All these

circumstances, in our considered view, shroud the case of the

prosecution with great suspicion. Neither the statement of the

prosecutrix is confidence inspiring nor does the same seem to

be trustworthy and reliable. Even the statements of PW2 and

PW3 do not inspire confidence for convicting the accused for

commission of offences for which they have been charged.

20. Besides this, we have also perused the judgment

passed by the learned trial Court and a perusal of the same

03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

demonstrates that the learned trial Court has taken into

consideration all the aspects of the matter and after


discussing the same at length, it has returned the findings of

acquittal in favour of accused. In our considered view also, on

the basis of material on record, it cannot be said that the

prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the conclusion

arrived at by the learned trial Court that prosecution had

failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable

doubt cannot be faulted with.

21. Accordingly, as there is no infirmity with the

findings returned by the learned trial Court and further as

there is no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed,

so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

(Sanjay Karol)
Acting Chief Justice

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
June 02, 2017.


03/06/2017 00:00:51 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation