STATE Vs. DINESH SALARIA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this condonation application, the appellant is seeking to condone 350 days delay in filing the above-titled Criminal Acquittal Appeal against the judgment dated 31.08.2017 delivered by the learned Principal Sessions Court, Kathua, whereby the respondents herein have been acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 363/376 RPC in FIR No.292/2012 registered at Police Station, Kathua. Along with the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has also filed SLA No.92/2018 seeking leave of the Court to file the appeal.

(2.) Before dealing with the application for condonation of delay, we deem it appropriate to examine the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, to find out as to whether or not any interference is warranted therewith and notice is required to be issued, so that injustice may not occasion merely because of lapse on the part of the appellant-State in filing of appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. We note that we are finding in case after case appeals being filed in routine without examination as to whether there is legal merit in them or not. This Court is being burdened with appeals completely devoid of legal merit.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment reveals that there were material contradictions in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses. PW1-brother of prosecutrix had stated that the vehicle, in which the prosecutrix was kidnapped, was at a distance of 500 meters from their house, whereas PW3-mother of prosecutrix as well as PW4-prosecutrix herself had stated that the vehicle had been parked at a distance of mere 70-80 feet from their house. Similarly, PW-1 and PW-4 had stated that respondent Dinesh Salaria pushed the prosecurtix into the car, whereas PW-3 had stated that she had seen a woman pulling prosecutrix into the car. Further, PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 had stated that the prosecutrix was kidnapped at 8:00 PM and the matter was reported to the Police Station at 8:05 PM, whereas PW-2, brother of PW-4, had stated that his sister had informed him on telephone about abduction of prosecutrix at 7:00 PM. Not only this, PW2 had stated that the prosecutrix was recovered from a vehicle bearing Haryana number and at that time the prosecutrix was wearing jeans, pant and shirt, whereas PW-3 had stated that at the time of recovery, prosecutrix was wearing salwar-kameez. Whereas, the case of prosecution is that the prosecutrix was recovered from a vehicle having Himachal Pradesh registration number.