Uttarakhand High Court
Mohit Tyagi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 April, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Judgment reserved on - 21.04.2026
Judgment delivered on -29.04.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.294 of 2020
Mohit Tyagi ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the
State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
(Per Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.)
Present appeal is preferred against the judgment
and order dated 13.01.2020 passed in Special Sessions Trial
No. 120 of 2018, State v. Mohit Tyagi, by the Fast Track
Court/Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Dehradun. By it, the accused/appellant has
been convicted under Sections 363, 377, 506 IPC and
Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (“the POCSO Act“) and has been
sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 1 year
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under
Section 363 IPC and 6 months rigorous imprisonment with a
fine of 1,000/- under Section 506 IPC.
2
2. The prosecution case started on the basis of FIR,
which was registered at Reporting Out Post Dakpatthar,
Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun at 23:30 hrs.
on 15.08.2018 at the behest of the informant with the
allegations that the informant’s minor son/ victim aged 13
years was returning home on 15.08.2018 at about 6:30 in
the evening after tuition from Tons Colony, Dakpatthar.
When his son reached near the house then the accused
Mohit Tyagi son of Subhash Chand Tyagi R/o Tons Colony,
Dakpatthar came from the front, who was on his bike
Discover No.UA07L 4678 and he kidnapped his son forcibly
by threatening him and made him sit on his motorcycle and
took him near Shanti Dham, Dakpatthar, where Mohit Tyagi
aforesaid forcibly made unnatural sexual relations with his
son and left his son and went away threatening to kill his
mother and father on telling anyone. On feeling pain in his
anus, his son on coming home narrated the entire incident,
therefore, it was requested that the report be registered and
legal action be taken. The said FIR was initially registered as
Chowki Silsila No.83/18 at Reporting Out Post Dakpatthar
and then registered as Case Crime No.0371 of 2018 under
Sections 363/377/506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act
at Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR,
accused/appellant was arrested from the Dakpatthar Bus
3
Stand on 16.08.2018 at 11:35 hrs. and arrest memo was
also prepared.
4. In pursuance to the aforesaid FIR, the medico
legal examination of the victim was conducted at CHC
Vikasnagar on 16.08.2018 at 12:05 am. In the said medico
legal examination report, the allegations as narrated in the
FIR have been disclosed to the Medical Officer, who
conducted the said medico legal examination and except
tenderness in the anus of the victim, no other abnormality
was detected in the said medical examination. In the course
of the medical examination, T-shirt, baniyan, underwear,
jeans and pant of the victim were collected and handed over
to the concerning police by the Medical Officer. Also two anal
swabs from the anus were collected. Blood sample of the
victim was also collected during examination.
5. Upon arrest of the accused/applicant, the accused
was also medically examined on 16.08.2018 at 1:30 pm by
the Medical Officer C.H.C., Vikas Nagar, Dehradun. The
alleged history of the medico legal report states – no history
of chronic disease/medication/hospitalization/substance
abuse- history of having taken bath and cloth change in the
morning (16.08.18). The medico legal report of the accused
specifically states- no scratch marks found on the body; (i)
no abnormality on local examination; (ii) no smegma present
4
on glans. The samples taken were:- (i)- Sample from Glans
sent in sterile tube for DNA analysis; (ii)- Combed public hair
sample sealed; (iii)- Cut pubic hair of accused sealed; (iv)-
sealed undergarments.
6. On 16.08.2018, the Investigating Officer (referred
to as I.O. hereinafter) took over the investigation and
recorded the statements of the informant and also the
statements of the victim. On 20.08.2018 at the pointing out
of the victim, the place of incident was inspected and the site
plan was prepared. On 20.08.2018, the statements of the
victim were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) in the Court of the
Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun. In the statements under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, the victim reiterated the FIR
allegations. In the course of the investigation, the I.O.
obtained the blood samples of the victim and the accused
and same were sent to the FSL. In the course of the
investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of the relevant
witnesses. On 31.08.2018, the I.O. collected the original
mark-sheet of Class-VI of the victim from the informant and
also recorded the statements of the Medical Officer in the
case diary. On completion of the investigation, the I.O.
submitted the charge-sheet in the Court on 31.08.2018
against the accused/appellant under Sections 363/377/506
IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act. On the basis of the said
5
charge-sheet dated 31.08.2018, the FTC/Special Judge,
POCSO, Dehradun took cognizance under Sections
363/377/506 IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act against the
accused/appellant.
7. Thereafter, charges were framed against the
accused/appellant under Sections 363/377/506 of the IPC
and Section 4 of the POCSO Act on 27.11.2018 by the Fast
Track Court/Additional District Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO), Dehradun. The accused pleaded not guilty and
requested for trial.
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined as many as 6 witnesses, namely, PW 1, the victim,
PW 2, father of the victim, PW 3 Dr. Vijay Singh, PW 4 SI
Ratan Singh Bisht, PW 5 S.P. Giri and PW 6 Dr. Pradeep
Chauhan. In his defence, the appellant has examined
himself as DW 1.
9. After the prosecution witnesses were examined,
the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
The accused denied making unnatural sexual relations with
the minor son of the informant. He stated that the
statements of PW-1 victim and PW-2 father of the victim are
false. Regarding the statements of PW-3 Dr. Vijay Singh he
feigned ignorance. Regarding the statement of PW-4 SI Ratan
Singh Bisht he stated that false investigation was conducted
6
and false charge-sheet was submitted. Regarding statements
of PW5 S.P. Giri, he feigned ignorance. To the question, as
to why the witnesses are giving statements against him, he
answered that false statements are being given. He also
replied that false case proceeded against him and that he is
innocent and he has not committed any offence and whether
he would like to give any defence evidence, he replied in the
affirmative.
10. After hearing the parties, by the impugned
judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as stated hereinbefore. It is challenged in the
instant appeal.
11. Before the arguments are appreciated, it would be
apt to examine as to what the witnesses have stated.
12. The victim was examined as PW1 who in his
examination-in-chief deposed that the incident is of
15.08.2018 at 6:30 in the evening, when he was returning
home from tuition; the accused Mohit Tyagi met him near
the house; he was on a motorcycle; he forcibly made the
victim to sit on his bike and threatened that if he does not go
with him, he will kill his Mummy-Papa, then he sat on the
motorcycle out of fear; the accused took him to near the
Barrage near Shamshan Ghat Solar Panel; there the
accused forcibly took off his clothes, then took off his own
clothes; inspite of refusal by the victim, the accused made
7
unnatural sexual relations with him forcibly due to which,
he experienced a lot of pain; Then he left him at Tikona
Pahar from where the victim went home walking; the
accused threatened him again that if he tells it to his
Mummy-Papa then he will kill them. PW 1, the victim further
deposed that the accused had consumed wine; after going
home, the victim told Mummy-Papa about this incident, then
his parents took him to Dakpatthar Chouki where his father
gave a written report of the incident in the Chauki. On
seeing Paper No. “16A” the witness said that it is his class
6th report card in which name of his parents and the date of
birth of the victim is recorded as 01.01.2005; regarding this
incident, there was his medical. The witness identified his
thumb impression on Paper No. 13A/2. On perusal of Paper
No. 13A/3, PW 1, the victim stated that on the asking of
doctor he had given the information regarding the incident to
the doctor which was noted down by the doctor; Regarding
the incident, his statement was recorded before the
Magistrate. The witness was shown Paper No. 18A/1, then
on reading it he said that this was the statement he gave
before the Magistrate and identified his signatures below the
statement which was marked as Ex.A-1. The witness also
stated about inserting of penis by the accused in his mouth
and catching his neck.
13. The victim was cross examined and in his cross-
examination the witness stated that he saw the accused
8
Mohit Tyagi, present in court, for the first time on
15.08.2018; he did not know the accused from before; he
had told him to sit on the motorcycle and had also said that
if he does not sit, he will beat him; on which, he sat on the
motorcycle of Mohit Tyagi present in court; he had not met
the victim before that; he does not know the house of Mohit
Tyagi; he also does not know his mother-father from before
that. He denied the suggestion that some other boy had
done unnatural intercourse with him and he is naming
Mohit Tyagi due to confusion. The victim admitted that it is
correct to say at the time of incident, it was dark.
14. The informant was examined as PW2. In his
statements, the PW2 deposed that the victim is his son; he
was studying in Class-VIII and at present is studying in Class-
IXth; his age is 13 years and his date of birth is 01.01.2005.
On seeing Paper No. “16A”, the witness stated that it is the
report card of the victim of Class-VI of Lakshya Public School
in which name of the victim, name of his parents, Admission
No.221 and date of birth 01.01.2005 is there; he does not
know Mohit Tyagi and himself stated that he used to do the
work of supplying cylinders at homes of the people, therefore,
he has seen him; the incident is of 15.08.2018, the victim
was returning from tuition at 6:30, Mohit Tyagi met him on
the way; he made the victim to sit on the vehicle by threat
and said that he will kill his parents; the accused
9
took the victim near Shanti Dhaam Barrage and committed
unnatural sexual exploitation of the victim and mar-peet and
threatened to kill; then the victim came and narrated the
entire incident and also complained of pain in the anus; on
the same day at 11:30 in the evening he gave a written report
at Chauki Dakpatthar. The report is Paper No. 4A in the file
which is in his handwriting which is marked as Ex.A-2. He
had taken along the son to the Police Station; the police
personnel had asked him the facial features of the accused
and he had also told them that from where he was picked and
where he was taken. According to the PW 2, the informant,
the police had shown a photo to the victim who had identified
the accused on the basis of the photo and said that the boy in
the photo had committed wrong act with him; his son’s
medical examination was conducted, he had gone along with
him; the statements of the victim were recorded before the
Magistrate; the accused is present in the court.
15. In his cross examination, the PW2 admitted that
he was not with the victim at the time of incident.
According to the PW 2, it is also correct to say that he has
not seen anyone making unnatural sexual relations with the
victim; it is also correct to state that no test identification
parade of the accused was conducted in the Thana or before
the Magistrate; it is also correct to say that the police having
shown the photo to the victim and to him, was not stated in
10
the statements given to the I.O. nor he had given any photo
of the accused to the I.O.; it is also correct to say that police
having shown the photo to the victim is being told for the
first time in the court. He denied the suggestion that being
father of the victim he is giving false evidence in his support
in the court.
16. The doctor who conducted the medical
examination of the victim on 16.08.2018 was examined as
PW-3. He deposed that the victim narrated him about the
incident being of 7:30 on 15.08.2018 and that wrong act was
committed upon him and he was threatened. The doctor
stated that there was slight swelling on the left side of the
neck of the victim and pain in the anus at the time of
examination. He also deposed about having collected anal
swabs, victim’s underwear, pant, urine, nail clipping, hair
and blood sample at the time of examination and handing
over to police and proved the medical examination report
which was marked as Ex. A-3.
17. The Investigating Officer (S.I. Ratan Singh Bisht)
was examined as PW4. He deposed that he took over the
investigation on 16.08.2018 and recorded the statements of
the informant & victim and also arrested the accused on
16.08.2018. The arrest and information memo was prepared
which was proved by him and marked as Ex.A-4 and also
11
recorded the statements of the accused in the case diary and
also recorded the medical reports of the accused and victim.
He also deposed that he prepared the site plan which is in
his handwriting and it was marked as Ex.A-5. He also
deposed that on the same day, he got the statements of the
victim recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164
Cr.P.C. The witness proved the application Paper Nos. 7B/1
and 7B/2 which was submitted for recording the statements
of the victim and which were marked as Ex.A-6 and A-7
respectively. On 23.08.2018, the blood samples of the victim
and the accused were obtained and were sent to FSL and
after submitting them on 23.08.2018, a receipt was obtained
on which he identified his signatures which was marked as
Ex.A-8. The witness also proved the Chik FIR Chauki Silsila
No.83/18 recorded on the basis of report of the informant by
constable Shailendra. He identified the signatures of
Shailendra Dutt which was marked as Ex.A-9. The witness
also proved G.D. entry of registration of case which is report
no.29 time 23:30 dated 15-08-2018 which was in the
handwriting of Shailendra Dutt which was marked as Ex. A-
10. The G.D. entry of arrest of the accused was bearing
report no.16 time 11:55 dated 16.08.2018 which was
marked as Ex.A-11. The witness also deposed about
handing over the original report card of Class-VI of the victim
by the informant to him which records the date of birth of
12
the victim and his name. He also stated about recording the
statements of Medical Officer Dr. Vijay Singh. After
investigation, the charge-sheet was sent to the court on
31.08.2018. The charge-sheet was proved by him and
marked as Ex.A-12.
18. In his cross examination, the PW4 admitted that
he arrested the accused on 16.08.2018 from near Bus
Station Dakpathar. He has narrated the criminal history of
the accused from record of the Thana, he has no personal
knowledge; he did not know the accused from before; he
was told the facial features of the accused by the victim and
from its aid, he had caught the accused; he also did not
know the informant from before; He did not know the house
of the informant and the victim; he had got the Section 164
Cr.P.C. statements of the victim recorded in the court on
20.08.2018. He denied the suggestion that he had not
conducted the investigation of the case in accordance with
law. He admitted that he had not conducted the
identification proceedings of the accused. He admitted that
there are two cases against the accused registered in the
Thana under Section 377 IPC, but denied that on the basis
of these cases, on the ground of suspicion the case crime
No.0371/2018 was registered and he was arrested and
challaned.
13
19. The Principal of the School, in which the victim
was studying, was examined as PW-5 who proved the date of
birth of the victim as 01.01.2005 on the basis of S.R.
Register, the original S.R. Register was in front of him whose
photocopy he proved which was marked as Ex.A-13. The
witness also identified his signatures on the Class-VI mark-
sheet of the victim and it was marked as Ex.A-14.
20. The Medical Officer Dr. Pradeep Chauhan who
conducted the medical examination of the accused on
16.08.2018 was examined as PW-6, who inter alia stated
that the accused has told him that he is not suffering from
any disease and he has come after bathing and changing
clothes. He had taken swab from the Glans of the accused
and pubic hair and undergarments which were sealed and
handed over to Constable Kuldeep. The medical report is in
his handwriting which was marked as Ex.A-15. The bundle
containing the case material, inside which, one grey colour
underwear, baniyan were there. On seeing which, the
witness stated that this underwear and baniyan were taken
into possession during examination from Mohit Tyagi. The
underwear was marked as material Ex.1, baniyan marked as
material Ex.2, outer bundle was marked as material Ex.3
and the witness identified his signatures on the other
bundle. Two other bundles relating to the case bearing FSL
No.1552/2018 which were related to blood sample of the
14
accused and the victim which were marked as material Ex.4
and material Ex.5, respectively. Before the court, one more
envelope in which the Ex.4 is recorded was identified by the
witness. The envelope was marked material Ex.6. The
envelope was opened inside which the swab and pubic hair
of the accused was found. On the swab, material Ex.7 and
on pubic hair material Ex.8 was marked. In the cross-
examination, the witness stated that it is correct to say that
he cannot say that the pubic hair and swab are of the
accused or not and he cannot identify the underwear and
baniyan which were inside the envelope; he cannot say that
actually the accused had came from home after bath or not,
but he had asked him and he had told, which he had
mentioned; it is correct that there were no marks of
abrasion or swelling on the private parts of the accused.
21. The accused examined himself as DW1 and
deposed that on 16.08.2018 he was called to Dakpatthar
Chauki through a sepoy. He reached Dakpathar Chauki at
9:00 in the morning then the Darogaji Shamsher Ali had
asked him that he had unnatural intercourse with someone
yesterday, which he had denied and that on his denial, he
had committed maar-peet with him; a man was sitting there;
Darogaji told him that with the informant’s son he had
committed the wrong act; when this witness again denied,
then Darogaji again committed maar-peet with him; the
15
Darogaji gave him a small Katori and told him to go to the
Bathroom and take out his semen; he refused for this, then
he again committed maar-peet with him; to save himself
from beating, he took out his semen in the Katori and placed
before him; what he did with the semen, this witness does
not know; thereafter, he was falsely implicated in this case
and sent to jail. He admitted that there were two cases
under the same sections in which he was acquitted and
police had implicated him in the case. The witness was
cross examined and in his cross- examination he has stated
that after going to Dakpatthar Chauki, he did not go back
home again and police sent to him jail from there; he was
not told in which offence he was being sent to jail. He
admitted that there were three cases in Thana Vikas Nagar,
in all of which he was acquitted.
22. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Ms.
Divya Jain, Advocate and Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy
Advocate General for the State at length and perused the
record.
23. First of all the learned counsel for the appellant
made a submission that the PW1/victim made the dock
identification after about a year of the incident. She argued
that in his cross examination, the victim/PW-1 has stated
that he has seen the accused Mohit Tyagi for the first time
16
on 15.08.2018 and he did not know the accused from before.
She also drew the attention of the Court to the statement of
the victim/PW-1 when he accepted the suggestion that it is
right to say that at the time of incident it was dark and thus
submitted that how could the victim/PW-1 identify the
accused as well as the motorcycle number when as per the
victim himself it was dark. Referring to the statements of
PW-2, the father of the victim, it is argued that he too, did
not know Mohit Tyagi but this witness has himself stated
that he does the work of supplying cylinders the people
houses, therefore, he has seen him. In the Thana, the police
personnel had asked the facial features of the accused and
police had shown one photo to the victim and on the basis of
the photo, he had identified the accused. It was further
argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no test
identification parade was conducted and said fact is
admitted to the I.O./PW-4. She also stressed that the facial
features of the accused was told by the victim and on that
assistance I.O. had apprehended the accused.
24. The learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that the accused was arrested on 16.08.2018 at
about 1:30 pm from Bus Stand, Vikas Nagar. Thereafter, the
accused was taken to the Medical Officer. Referring to the
medico legal report of the accused, she argued that upon
examination of the accused, the Medical Officer in the
17
alleged history has specifically mentioned that there is no
history of chronic disease. There is the history of having
taken bath and clothes changed in the morning (of
16.08.2018).
25. The learned counsel for the appellant has further
argued that if the accused had changed his clothes how the
semen could be detected in his underwear. She also referred
to the statement of PW-6, the Medical Officer who conducted
the medical examination of the accused, wherein he deposed
that the accused told him that he had taken bath and also
changed his clothes.
26. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant
further argued that since it is admitted to prosecution
witness the victim/PW1 that at the time of incident, it was
dark, hence he did not have any opportunity to identify or
see the face of the accused/appellant. Then how the FIR
could be registered against the accused by name.
27. The counsel for the accused/appellant thus
submitted that since it was dark at the time of incident
there was no opportunity to the witness to identify the
accused hence in the absence of the identification of the
accused the case is bad since the inception.
18
28. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant
further made a submission that the accused was not
confronted with the conclusion of the FSL report dated
15.11.2018 regarding the matching of the DNA in the
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., hence the conclusion
of FSL report dated 15.11.2018 having not presented for the
explanation of the accused, the same cannot be a ground for
conviction of the accused/appellant. The learned counsel for
the appellant lastly submitted that Section 4(2) of the
POCSO Act was inserted with effect from 16.08.2019 and the
incident being of 15.08.2018, the sentence of 20 years could
not have been imposed since at that particular time, there
was lesser sentence of not less than 7 years, hence, the
sentence is also on the higher side.
29. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General for
the State Ms. Manisha Rana Singh contended that the
incident occurred in the month of August, hence the witness
could have seen the accused. As to how the accused was
named in the FIR and as to how the victim had the
opportunity/occasion to identify the accused, she has no
plausible explanation except that on the basis of photograph
of the accused he was named in the FIR. However, she
submitted that since the accused threatened the victim
before and after the incident, he had ample time to see the
accused. Supporting the prosecution case, she argued that
19
in the medical examination of the victim there was
tenderness in the anus and mild swelling in the neck and
the medical report supports the prosecution case.
30. So far as the matching of the DNA is concerned,
the learned Deputy Advocate General contended that the
clothes of the accused were sealed on 16.08.2018 and were
duly referred for examination to the Forensic Science
Laboratory. She also submitted that blood samples were
taken on 23.08.2018 and on the same day they were
transmitted to the FSL. She placed reliance on the FSL
report dated 15.11.2018 and stated that human semen was
detected on Ex.3 and that DNA obtained from Ex.3
(underwear of the accused) is matching with the DNA
obtained from Ex.13 and Ex.14 (blood sample of the victim
and blood sample of the accused).
31. On considering the rival submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and also going through the record,
the questions/issues which fall for consideration of the
Court are- (i) As to whether the victim could have identified
the accused and named him in the FIR? (ii) As to whether
the FSL report can form one of the basis for sustaining
conviction of the accused/appellant?
32. The result of this appeal hinges on the outcome of
the answers to the aforesaid two questions. On one hand, it
20
has been argued on behalf of the accused/appellant that
since it was dark at the time of incident, hence the victim
had no opportunity or occasion to see and identify the
accused at the time of incident. In the cross examination,
the victim/PW1 has admitted that it was dark at the time of
incident. He has also admitted that he has seen the accused
for the first time on 15.08.2018 and he did not know the
victim from before. It also needs to be stated that when the
informant had taken his son to the Police Station the police
had asked the facial features of the accused and the police
had shown the photo and on the basis of the photo, the
victim had identified the accused which is evident from the
statement of examination-in-chief of PW-2. The PW-2 has
admitted that there was no test identification parade in the
Thana or before the Magistrate. He also admitted that he
had not given the statement to the I.O. that police had
shown the photo to the victim and PW-2 nor he had given
any photo of the accused to the I.O. The PW-2 also admitted
that he is making the statement about police having shown
the photo of the accused to the victim for the first time in
court. In his cross examination, the I.O./PW-4 has admitted
that the victim had told him the facial features of the
accused and with its assistance he had apprehended the
accused.
21
33. Prosecution is not able to even suggest as to how
the FIR is named. It doubts the prosecution case.
34. The victim has categorically stated that it was
dark at the time of incident. How the appellant has been
named in the FIR? How could he be identified in court by
anyone when no one had any opportunity to identify him at
the time of alleged incident?
35. In view of all these glaring inconsistencies in the
prosecution case, the explanation put forth on behalf of the
State by the learned Deputy Advocate General that in the
month of August, it was possible for the victim to have
identified the accused at 6:30 in the evening and that the
accused having threatened the victim before and after the
incident, hence there was ample opportunity for the victim to
identify the accused, is wholly unacceptable for the due
identification of the accused.
36. In view of the facts and circumstances as narrated
hereinbefore, we are of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has utterly failed to firstly give a satisfactory
explanation for the identification of the accused by the victim
as it is the prosecution case that it was dark at the time of
incident (as stated by the victim himself) and secondly how
the FIR could have been lodged at the behest of the
22
informant naming the accused in the FIR. Hence, the
prosecution case is palpably false at the very inception.
37. So far as the conclusion of the FSL report dated
15.11.2018 is concerned, the same also does not inspire
confidence for placing reliance upon it, inasmuch as the
medical examination report of the accused dated 16.08.2018
clearly states that there is history of the accused having
taken bath and changed clothes. Also statements of DW-1
accused need to be considered wherein he stated that the
police had obtained semen from the accused under threat by
repeated beating in the Chauki and thus to save himself
from the further beating by police, the accused took out his
semen and gave it to the police. The police has thus not
been able to successfully prove that the chain of custody of
the underwear which the accused was wearing at the time of
incident was the same underwear which was taken into
possession at the time of medical examination of the
accused. Secondly, since the accused-appellant was not
confronted with the conclusions of the FSL report, the FSL
report could not be relied against the accused. Hence in
view of the aforesaid, the FSL report dated 15.11.2018
cannot be read against the accused/appellant and on this
count too, the prosecution case is bound to fail and the
conviction of the accused cannot be sustained.
23
38. Thus on the overall consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the
prosecution has utterly failed to successfully prove the
charges under Sections 363, 377 and 506 of the IPC and
Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act against the accused
/appellant. Hence the judgment and order dated 13.01.2020
passed by the Fast Track Court/Special Judge
(POCSO)/Additional District Judge, Dehradun cannot be
sustained and deserves to be set-aside. Accordingly, the
appeal deserves to be allowed.
39. The appeal is allowed.
40. The impugned judgment and order is set aside.
The accused-appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled
against him.
41. The accused-appellant is in jail. Let he be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case, subject to his
furnishing personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned under
Section 437A of the Cr.P.C. within three weeks.
42. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial
court record be sent to the court concerned.
1
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
29.04.2026 29.04.2026
RS
[ad_1]
Source link
