Uttarakhand High Court
Vijendra Pal @ Laturi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Jail Appeal No.53 of 2019
Vijendra Pal @ Laturi ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Presence:
Ms. Neelima Mishra Joshi, learned counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA for the State.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present Criminal Jail Appeal has been preferred under
Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the
Appellant, Vijendra Pal @ Laturi, challenging the judgment and
order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the learned Fast Track
Court/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Udham
Singh Nagar, in Special Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2017, arising out of
FIR No. 351 of 2016, registered at Police Station Kichha, District
Udham Singh Nagar.
2. As per the FIR, the victim, stated to be a minor, was
allegedly enticed away by the Appellant on 06.12.2016 without the
consent of her parents. Based on the written complaint lodged by
the father of the victim, the FIR mentioned above was registered
under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Upon recovery of the victim on
09.01.2017, Sections 376(2) IPC and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act
were added during investigation.
1
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 53 of 2019, Vijendra Pal @ Laturi Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5391
3. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was
submitted against the Appellant for the offences punishable under
Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the
Appellant under Section 376(2) IPC and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of
₹50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further
simple imprisonment.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction,
the Appellant has preferred the present Criminal Jail Appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is erroneous, both
on facts and law, and is not sustainable.
6. It is contended that the relationship between the Appellant
and the victim was consensual. The victim voluntarily
accompanied the Appellant without any inducement, force,
coercion, or compulsion, and both remained together for over one
month before the lodging of the FIR and their recovery.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that even after the
arrest of the Appellant, the conduct of the victim demonstrates the
voluntary nature of their relationship. It is noted that the victim
continued to visit the Appellant in jail on multiple occasions.
During each of these visits, the victim identified herself as the
Appellant's wife in the 'Mulakat' registers. It is further submitted
that the Aadhaar card of the victim, placed on record, also
2
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 53 of 2019, Vijendra Pal @ Laturi Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5391
mentions the Appellant as her husband, which corroborates the
consensual nature of their relationship.
8. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to
establish the minority of the victim in accordance with the law. The
school certificate relied upon by the prosecution to prove the
victim's age is not corroborated by any primary admission register
or testimony of a competent school authority. The investigating
agency made no attempt to produce the original school admission
records. Furthermore, no medical examination, ossification test, or
any other scientific method was conducted to ascertain the age of
the victim.
9. Learned counsel contended that because of the failure to
establish the victim's age through cogent and admissible evidence,
the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act cannot be
invoked. Consequently, the question of consent cannot be brushed
aside merely on the assumption of minority.
10. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 164 CrPC, as well as her deposition before
the Trial Court, does not disclose any allegation of force, threat, or
coercion. On the contrary, her consistent stand is that she went with
the Appellant voluntarily.
11. Learned counsel argued that the learned Trial Court erred
in ignoring the material contradictions and omissions in the
prosecution's evidence. The findings recorded by the Trial Court
are perverse, being based on conjectures and surmises, rather than
legal evidence.
3
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 53 of 2019, Vijendra Pal @ Laturi Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5391
12. Per contra, Shri Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the
State, opposed the appeal, contending that the conviction has been
recorded based on cogent, reliable, and trustworthy evidence,
particularly the testimony of the victim, which inspires complete
confidence.
13. It is submitted that the age of the victim is duly proved
through documentary evidence, including the school certificate,
which is a reliable document issued by a government-recognised
institution. It is further contended that the defence has failed to
rebut the documentary evidence regarding the victim's age.
14. Learned A.G.A. submitted that since the victim was a
minor at the time of the incident, the question of consent becomes
immaterial given the statutory mandate under Section 375 IPC as
well as the provisions of the POCSO Act.
15. It is further contended that the testimony of the victim,
which remains consistent and unshaken during cross-examination,
is sufficient to sustain the conviction. Learned A.G.A. argued that
there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the victim, and the
Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in its correct
perspective.
16. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the subsequent
conduct of the victim, including her visits to the jail and the
Aadhaar entry, cannot override the legal position when the offence
relates to a minor, where consent is rendered irrelevant under the
law.
4
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 53 of 2019, Vijendra Pal @ Laturi Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5391
17. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal is devoid of merit
and deserves to be dismissed.
18. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the
records.
19. A careful perusal of the record reflects that the conviction
of the Appellant primarily rests on three components:
(i) The testimony of the victim,
(ii) Proof of the victim's age to establish minority, and
(iii) The legal presumption under the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), arising
from minority.
20. As regards the victim's testimony, a plain reading of her
statement under Section 164 CrPC, as well as her deposition before the
learned Trial Court, does not disclose any allegation of physical coercion,
force, threat, or compulsion. The victim has categorically stated that she
left her home voluntarily and accompanied the Appellant of her own free
will. During approximately one month when she remained with the
Appellant, there is no assertion of any form of duress or assault.
21. This Court also takes note of the subsequent conduct of the
victim. The material placed on record, including the jail 'Mulakat'
registers, demonstrates that after the arrest of the Appellant, the victim
continued to meet him in jail on several occasions. On each of these visits,
she identified herself as the wife of the Appellant in the 'Mulakat'
registers. Additionally, the Aadhaar card of the victim, which forms part of
the record, records the Appellant as her husband. Though not decisive in
isolation, this conduct has a significant bearing on assessing the voluntary
nature of the relationship.
5
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 53 of 2019, Vijendra Pal @ Laturi Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5391
22. Turning to the issue of the victim's age, the prosecution has relied
solely upon a school certificate to establish that the victim was a minor at
the time of the incident. However, the prosecution neither produced the
original admission register nor examined any official from the concerned
school to corroborate the date of birth mentioned in the certificate. There
is no explanation on record for the failure to produce the admission
register or any other foundational record.
23. Further, it is an admitted position that no ossification test or any
other form of medical examination was conducted to determine the age of
the victim. In the absence of such corroborative medical evidence,
especially when the documentary evidence itself stands disputed, the
prosecution's failure becomes significant.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana,
(2013) 7 SCC 263, has authoritatively held that when documentary
evidence regarding age is either disputed or appears unreliable, the
prosecution must seek medical determination of age. The ratio laid down
therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
25. In the considered view of this Court, the state has failed to prove
the minority of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the question
of age becomes doubtful, the statutory presumption under Sections 29 and
30 of the POCSO Act loses its applicability.
26. Insofar as the allegation of sexual assault is concerned, it is
evident from the victim's own statements that there was no allegation of
force or threat. Her consistent version is that she willingly accompanied
the Appellant and stayed with him.
27. It is trite law that in cases involving minors, the question of
consent becomes immaterial if minority is duly proved. However, when
6
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 53 of 2019, Vijendra Pal @ Laturi Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5391
the prosecution fails to establish the age of the victim, the element of
consent becomes critical in assessing culpability under Section 376 of the
IPC.
28. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Appellant has any
criminal antecedents. Furthermore, the subsequent conduct of the victim
and the nature of the relationship must not be overlooked when assessing
culpability.
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The
conviction of the Appellant cannot be sustained either under Section
376(2) IPC or under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion and the conclusions drawn
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction and
sentence recorded against the Appellant cannot be sustained in law.
Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 09.01.2017 passed by
the learned Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO), Udham Singh Nagar, in Special Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2017,
arising out of FIR No. 351 of 2016, Police Station Kichha, District Udham
Singh Nagar, is hereby set aside.
The Appellant, Vijendra Pal @ Laturi, is acquitted of all charges.
The Appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any
other case.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
19.06.2025
SB
SHIKSHA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c1
2f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001,
BINJOLA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED0
0E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.07.09 11:20:23 +05’30’
7
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 53 of 2019, Vijendra Pal @ Laturi Vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.