HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Leave to Appeal No. 32 of 2025 State of Uttarakhand ......Appellant Versus Rishipal ….Respondent Present: Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. for the State/appellant. With Government Appeal No. 12 of 2025 State of Uttarakhand ......Appellant Versus Rishipal ….Respondent Present: Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. for the State/appellant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) The Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2025 is allowed. Delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. 2. The respondent has been acquitted for the charge under Section 506 IPC and Section 7/8 and 9 (m)/10 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on 31.07.2024 in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 2017, “A” Vs. 2 Rishipal, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC, District Haridwar (“the case”). 3. Now, State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order passed in the case. 4. Heard learned counsel for the State/appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the State/appellant would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief recorded under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) and her statement has been supported by her father and mother. 6. The case was based on an application filed under Section 156 (3) of the Code by the father of the victim. According to it, on 06.01.2017 at 11:30 in the morning, when the victim visited the shop of the respondent, he took her inside the shop and sexually assaulted her. This application under Section 156 (3) of the Code was treated as a complaint. After inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code, the respondent was summoned. At the stage of examination under Section 244 of the Code, three witnesses, 3 namely, PW1 the father of the victim, PW2 the mother of the victim and PW3 the victim were examined. But thereafter, they did not appear for cross examination despite service of summons. After considering the matter, by the impugned judgment and order, the respondent has been acquitted. 7. This Court is unable to apprehend as to what is the basis for the State to file leave to appeal in this matter. Three witnesses were examined at the stage of Section 244 of the Code, It is their examination-in-chief. But, they did not appear for cross examination. Without cross examination of any witness, such statement cannot be read as evidence that is what has been held in the impugned judgment and order. There is, in fact, no evidence in the case. Therefore, there is no reason to grant leave to the State to prefer an appeal. 8. Accordingly, Special leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, Government Appeal is also dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 21.02.2025 Jitendra