STATE OF H.P. Vs. AMIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This application has been fled on behalf of the petitioner -State for condonation of delay of 33 days as has occurred in the institution of the appeal before this Court against the impugned judgment rendered on 24.06.2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin (Camp at Bilaspur), District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions trial No. 05/7 of 2015. Good, sufficient and abundant cause, which deterred or precluded the petitioner to move this Court within time stands detailed in paragraphs No. 2 and 3 of the application, whose contents stand duly supported by an affidavit. The said ground does not divulge of there being any element of deliberateness on the part of the petitioner to not move this Court within time. Accordingly, delay in the institution of the appeal before this Court stands condoned and the application stands allowed.

(2.) The State of Himachal Pradesh stands aggrieved by the findings of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent/accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, Camp at Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Being aggrieved, it has sought the leave of this Court for instituting an appeal therefrom for assailing it.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that prosecutrix was at home on 29.9.2014 up till 9.30 p.m. Thereafter, she went missing. She was not having any mobile phone or other articles. Nothing had been taken by her from home. She was searched by Prakash Chand every where including at the houses of his relatives, but she was not traceable. She had not been seen going away by any one. She had gone to ITI early in the morning at 8.30 a.m. and had returned back home at 5.30 p.m. that day. Prakash Chand suspected some one to have kidnapped his daughter. A written complaint (Ex. PW 7/A) was moved to Station House Officer, Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur where FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, on 4.10.2014, SI Naresh Kumar along with L.C. Sarswati, C. Ranbir Singh, Parkash Chand Sanjay Kumar had gone to Pouri Gadwal, as they had received an information that accused and the prosecutrix were present there. However, they could not be traced that day and while they were returning back, Prakash Chand received a telephonic call from Kishore Kumar, the brother of the accused, who was residing at Kurukshetra that he could lead them to the house of the accused at Pouri Gadwal in village Tamlag. The prosecutrix and the accused were found sitting there in a room. The prosecutrix was identified by Prakash Chand. She was handed over to her father Prakash Chand. A bed sheet was seized vide seizure memo. Spot map was prepared. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Sonu Kumari and she opined that there were no external injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. Possibility of sexual assault was not ruled out. During the course of investigation, the preserved clothes, vaginal slides, vaginal swabs, pubic hair etc were sent for chemical and forensic examination and the Investigating Officer prepared the spot maps of the places where the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused on the identification of the prosecutrix. The statements of the witnesses were recorded separately, copy of birth certificate and abstract of pariwar register were taken into possession and forensic report from FSL, was procured separately.