STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. VIJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on delay condonation application no. 1109/2008 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. There is 51 days delay in filing the appeal which is sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed by Hoshiyar Singh. Therefore, the delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Also heard on leave to appeal application no. 115 of 2008 and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 29.7.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/First FTC, Haridwar in S.T. No. 130 of 2007, whereby the said Court has acquitted the respondents Vijendra and Sunil Kumar @ Toni from the charge of offences punishable under Sections 363/120B, 366 and 376 IPC.

(2.) THE notices appear to have been issued to the respondents in compliance of the order dated 4.5.2012. However none has turned up on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) HOWEVER , on going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the trial court has discussed the evidence at length and found that it was PW2 Shivani who rang and called the accused Vijendra and she along with her sister went with the accused Vijendra on her own volition. It was also found that PW2 Shivani has nowhere stated in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that she was subjected to rape. PW7 Dr. Asha Sharma, in her cross -examination, admitted that Shivani could be aged about 18 years. Both the girls were said to be working in a factory from where they had gone to Muzaffarnagar and Bulandshahar where two sisters stayed with the accused for several days. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to grant leave to appeal. Leave to appeal application no. 115 of 2008 is rejected. The appeal stands dismissed.