Nijamuddin vs State Of Uttarakhand

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2021, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.53 of 2016, State v. Rohit and others, by the FTC/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Haldwani, District Nainital. By it, the appellant Nijamuddin, along with other co-convicts, has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 395, 376-D, and Section 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act). In addition to it, the appellant Nijamuddin and one co-convict Safeek Qureshi were convicted under Section 412 IPC. The appellant Nijamuddin was also convicted and sentenced under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the common judgment dated 21.01.2021, though passed in Special Sessions Trial No.45 of 2016, State v. Nijamuddin. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that other co-convicts have also filed separate appeals. They were Criminal Appeal Nos. 35 of 2021, 91 of 2021, 100 of 2021, and 137 of 2021. The appellant Nijamuddin had also filed Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2021 against his conviction under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Those appeals have already been decided by this Court on 16.03.2026, and even the appellant Nijamuddin has been acquitted of the charges framed against him. He further submits that this case was not tagged with that bunch of criminal appeals; in fact, post judgment dated 16.03.2026, passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2021, Safeek Qureshi v. State of Uttarakhand, and connected matters (“the first case”), the appellant Nijamuddin has already been released from prison.

This fact is admitted by learned State Counsel.

In the first case, when the judgment was recorded on 16.03.2026, this Court, although, had taken note of the charges framed against appellant Nijamuddin and co-convicts in Para No.7 of the judgment, and at one stage recorded that, “But, subsequently, by the order dated 22.07.2019, the court framed joint charges against all the appellants and one Guddu under Sections 395, 376D IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 412 IPC was framed against the appellant Nizamuddin and Safeek Qureshi.” The Court also took note in the first case on 16.03.2026, that, “The appellant Nizamuddin was also charged for the offences under Section 25 of the Arms Act.”

In the first case, the Court proceeded on the assumption that the appeal of the appellant Nijamuddin is also pending. Arguments were also advanced on behalf of the appellant Nijamuddin and he has already been acquitted. In Para Nos. 48 and 49 of the judgment in the first case, this Court observed as follows:-

While deciding the first case, the case of the appellant Nijamuddin has also been considered and decided. The only error was that the record of the appeal was not before the Court. But it makes no difference. The appeal of the appellant Nijamuddin has already been allowed. Now, nothing survives in this appeal. It stands disposed of, accordingly.