Dismissed

State of Uttarakhand v. Lalit Alias Lalu Alias Lucky Kumayan

Uttarakhand HC4 Jun 2024SPLA/135/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench of the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. The State challenged an acquittal where the trial court rejected prosecution evidence, citing a negative forensic report on paternity, the victim's documented mental handicap affecting testimony reliability, and procedural lacunae regarding witness examination. The High Court declined to interfere, upholding

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. rejected; Government Appeal dismissed at threshold.

State of Uttarakhand Vs Lalit Alias Lalu Alias Lucky… — Cheque Dishonour | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

¶3

AND

¶4

JUSTICE SHRI PANKAJ PUROHIT

¶5

Special Leave to Appeal No.135 of 2024

¶6

With

¶7

Government Appeal No.82 of 2024

¶8

04^TH June, 2024

¶9

State of Uttarakhand …… Appellant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Lalit @ Lalu …… Respondent

¶12

Present:Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶13

JUDGMENT: (per the Justice Shri Pankaj Purohit)

¶14

Delay condonation application (IA No.1 of 2024).

¶15

Heard learned Brief Holder for the State on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶16

As per the Office Report, there is a delay of 85 days in filing this appeal.

¶17

In view of the reasons, explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the delay is condoned. Delay condonation application stands allowed, accordingly.

¶18

Special Leave to Appeal No.135 of 2024

¶19

Heard learned Brief Holder for the State/appellant on the application for leave to appeal.

¶20

The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure along with application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2023 passed by Learned Session Judge, District Almora in Session Trial No.04 of 2023 ‘State Vs. Lalit @ Lalu’, whereby the said court has acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge of offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (l) IPC.

¶21

The facts in nutshell are that on the basis of written information given by the father of victim, the case was registered against the accused. It was stated in the FIR by the father of victim that his daughter aged about 22 years is mentally ill.

¶22

According to the FIR, one person of village Mansi had committed wrong deed with his daughter and in the month of September, 2020, when he had gone to Haldwani for her medical checkup, on 25.09.2020 the victim went away from the house and even after extensive efforts she could not be found. On 09.01.2021, when she returned home, the mother of victim informed the informant that the victim was pregnant, on being inquired, the victim disclosed that it is the accused-respondent who committed misdeed with her and the child is of him only. The informant

¶23

¶24

then brought the victim at Chakhutiya where in a tea shop the victim identified the respondent-accused as the accused. Then, the report was lodged. The Investigating Officer on completion of investigation submitted a charge sheet under Section 376 (2)(l) IPC against the respondent-accused in the court. The charge was framed against the accused. As many as seven witnesses, namely, PW1 victim, PW2 Ganesh Singh, PW3 Prahlad Singh, father of the victim, PW4 Dr. Kushum Lata, PW5 Dr. Yuvraj Pant, PW6 Dr. Premlata Sharma and PW7 S.I. Sweta Negi were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence was led by him in defence. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(l) IPC, hence, this appeal.

¶25

The Trial Court recorded the finding of acquittal of respondent-accused on following grounds:-

¶26

i. From the report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory, the accused was not found to be the biological father of the infant of the victim.

¶27

ii. The victim in this case was found by the Medical Officer to be 65% mentally handicapped and according to the Medical Officer, it was not possible to conclude that the victim was

¶28

¶29

deposing the right facts. According to the own statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim herself stated that she used to roam with various boys and she cannot state that the child so born was of which person.

¶30

iii. The victim has stated in her evidence that her father was having dispute with the respondent-accused and hence she took the name of respondent-accused in her statement before the Court. The father, informant of case and mother of informant were not examined by the prosecution in this matter, which was a serious and fatal lacuna in the prosecution case.

¶31

On the basis of aforesaid grounds the trial court recorded the findings of acquittal of accused.

¶32

For these reasons the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case against the respondent-accused beyond reasonable about.

¶33

We have carefully considered the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the State and also gone through the impugned judgment and order and in our considered view that there is no ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the passed by the trial court.

¶34

It is settled proposition of law that where two views are possible and one view adopted by the trial court is also worthy of acceptance, in that

¶35

¶36

situation the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the findings of acquittal.

¶37

In our considered view, there is no ground much less reasonable to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is liable to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.

¶38

Government Appeal No.82 of 2024

¶39

In view of the fact that we have declined to grant leave to appeal to the State against the impugned judgment, the Government Appeal is also dismissed at the threshold.

¶40

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

¶41

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

¶42

Dated: 4^th June, 2024 BS

¶43

State of Uttarakhand v. Lalit Alias Lalu Alias Lucky Kumayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Uttarakhand v. Lalit Alias Lalu Alias Lucky Kumayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulfam Ali Razi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anjali Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bharat Budha Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shyam Singh Vs the Union of India

State of Uttarakhand Vs Lalit Alias Lalu Alias Lucky Kumayan

State of Uttarakhand Vs Surjan Singh