Dismissed

Ramesh Chand S/O Shri Prabhu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Oct 2024CRLAS/2142/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed condonation of delay in filing criminal leave to appeal. It then dismissed the criminal leave to appeal and criminal appeal filed by the State against acquittal in a POCSO matter, holding there was no case for interference as the prosecution statement did not inspire confidence and double presumption of innocence favoured the accused.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; criminal appeal and criminal leave to appeal dismissed.

Ramesh Chand S/O Shri Prabhu Lal Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:42316]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 336/2024

¶4

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Prithviraj Son Of Ramswaroop, Resident Of Village Sunari, Police Station Indragarh, District Bundi (Raj)

¶8

1. Ramswaroop Son Of Mathuralal, Resident Of Village Sunari, Police Station Indragarh, District Bundi (Raj)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2142/2023

¶12

Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Prabhu Lal, R/o Village Sunari, Tehsil Indergar, Dist. Bundi.

¶13

----Appellant

¶14

Versus

¶15

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Prathviraj S/o Ramswaroop, R/o Village Sunari, Tehsil Indergar, Dist. Bundi.

¶16

1. Ramswaroop S/o Mathuralal, R/o Village Sunari, Tehsil Indergar, Dist. Bundi.

¶17

	----Respondents
For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Amit Dadhich
For Respondent(s)	: None.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶19

Order

¶20

08/10/2024

¶21

CMCR No. 543/2024 IN S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No.

¶22

336/2024:

¶23

Office has pointed out a delay of 205 days in filing the present criminal leave to appeal and to justify the reasons, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed supported with an affidavit.

[CRLLA-336/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:42316]

(2 of 4)

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and delay is condoned.

¶28

Misc. application stands disposed of.

¶29

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2142/2023 and S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 336/2024:

¶30

Aggrieved from order of acquittal, State has preferred leave to appeal whereas the complainant has filed criminal appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.

¶31

We have considered the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant appellant. 3. We have perused the statement of PW-3 victim along with parents of victim recorded as PW-1 and PW-2. Also considered the statement of PW-9 (Harish), IO in the matter. 4. A perusal of record clearly reflect that the prosecution has claimed date of birth of victim as 20.05.2006 and produced PW-4 Bhanwar Lal in support to establish the date of birth of victim as 20.05.2006. A perusal of statement of PW-4 and also Ex.P-8 clearly indicated that after cutting and overwriting previously recorded date of birth 03.02.2004, the date of birth 20.05.2006 was added and same was supported by PW-9 (IO). Thus, the trial court has not committed any error in placing reliance on such document.

¶32

We have considered the statement of victim with regard to incident is concerned and a fact is quite clear that report was registered after proper legal advice and same is admitted by the prosecution witnesses. The trial court has considered the crossexamination to judge the truthfulness of allegations.

[2024:RJ-JP:42316]

[CRLLA-336/2024]

(3 of 4)

The reasons as recorded by the trial court from crossexamination of witnesses produced in support of prosecution clearly reflect that the incident was a simple assault but same was registered as an incident of sexual assault. Section 7 of POCSO Act clearly provides that unless there is a sexual intent while making assault on victim the incident cannot be covered under Sections 7 of POCSO Act.

¶37

After considering the material on record, the statement of victim PW-3 does not inspire confidence so as to overturn the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court and substitute the opinion as expressed by learned trial court, therefore no case is made out for interference.

¶38

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka : (2007) 4 SCC 415; Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka : 2021 (5) SCC 222 and Rajesh Prasad V. The State of Bihar & Anr.: (2022) 3 SCC 407, specifically observed that in case of consideration of an appeal from order of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused and these presumptions are - firstly, presumption of innocence under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence is certainly not weakened, but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthend by the Trial Court.

¶39

Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh & Others v. State Of Rajasthan : 1961 AIR SC 715; M. G. Agarwal v. State Of

(4 of 4)

[CRLLA-336/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:42316]

Maharashtra : 1963 AIR SC 200; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat : (1996) 9 SCC 225; Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka : (1997) 7 SCC 110 and Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana : (2009) 12 SCC 351 , have considered the role of Appellate Court in considering situation arising out of order of acquittal and settled the proposition that the Appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and re-consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, however, Appellate Court is duty bound to keep in mind to that there is double presumption in favour of accused.

¶44

Accordingly, criminal appeal and criminal leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶45

Misc. application, if any stands disposed of.

¶46

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶47

PREETI VALECHA /41-42

Ramesh Chand S/O Shri Prabhu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand S/O Shri Prabhu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Kumar Shakya S/O Late Shri Khem Chand Shakya Vs Smt. Yashoda W/O Lalit Shakya D/O Parmeshwari Dayal

Ramdev S/O Late Shri Dharma Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Ramlal Meena Vs Lakhan Singh Meena S/O Shri Siyaram Meena

Chotu Ram S/O Shri Bhura Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Bablu @ Rakesh Sharma S/O Shri Badri Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Sharma S/O Shri Bachchu Singh Sharma Vs Krishan Kumar S/O Shri Anandi Lal Sharma