# Amar Nath Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1212
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3129 of 1986
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amar-nath-singh-v-state-of-u-p-54729
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
53. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 03.09.1985
passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 550 of 1981
is hereby set aside.

54. The appellant no. 2-Barati is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is on
bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

55. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the court concerned for compliance.

56. Mr. Salman Ahmad, learned Amicus Curiae shall be paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees
fifteen thousand only) for his assistance to the Court in deciding this criminal appeal.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1212
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3129 of 1986

Amar Nath Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of conviction order u/s 376 IPC

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-Section 376- victim specifically named the accused-appellant- evidence proves the
presence of the accused-appellant at the place of occurrence- bleeding suffered proved by the medical
evidence beyond doubt -clothes worn by the victim at the time of occurrence, got blood stains-also produced
as case property- mother of the prosecutrix and Gayatri Singh, who had also arrived at the place of
occurrence were not examined by prosecution -would not throw any doubt on the version of the prosecution
case- testimony of prosecutrix (P.W.-1)-Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Medical evidence; non examination; inconsistent to his innocence

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ronak Chaturvedi(ac), T.d. Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.
4 All. Amar Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1213
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Appellant-Amar Nath Singh is aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 9.12.1986 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial
No. 72 of 1985, arising out of Case Crime No. 124 of 1984, under Section 376 I.P.C., registered at
Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh, whereby he stands convicted and sentenced to
seven years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in the event of default, he has
been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year.

2. The above F.I.R. was registered on the basis of a written complaint by prosecutrix
submitted before Station House Officer Maharajganj, District Azamgarh, who stated that she is a
resident of village Molanapur Prathvipal, Police Station Maharajganj and used to take her goat for
grazing at Sivan. On 7.10.1984 at around 5:00 p.m., I took my goat for grazing on the eastern side
of village in a mango orchard, where my mother at some distance was cutting grass. Amar Nath
Singh @ Jhinku Singh s/o Bansh Gopal Singh, who belongs to our village was also working nearby
in his agricultural fields. My goat entered the Pigeon Pea fields of Chandrika Master, So I went
there, then suddenly Jhinku Singh came lifted me and took inside the Pigeon Pea fields. I struggled
and screamed, but he threw me on the ground and lifted my clothes (Peticoat and Sari) and raped
me. On hearing of screams, my mother and Gayatri Singh s/o Ram Aadhar Singh , Ram Chandar
Singh s/o Shiv Poojan Singh came there at the spot and on seen them, he ran away towards his
house. I was bleeding and could not walk before I fainted. I was brought by other persons and as it
was late night, no vehicle was available to reach police station. My mother brought me to
Parshurampur Hospital by Rickshaw where doctor refused treatment and asked to go to police
station. The complainant alongiwth her mother reached the police station by Rickshaw to lodge the
report. Broadly, on these allegations, the F.I.R. was registered against the accused for alleged
commission of offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C.

3. After registration of the F.I.R., the investigation in the case was conducted by
Investigating Officer namely, Mukteshwar Singh, who recorded the statements of witnesses
namely, Gayatri Singh and Ram Chandar Singh. During investigation, the injury report was
collected and the site plan was also prepared. The statements of other formal witnesses were also
recorded and finally the charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
thereby sending him to face prosecution for commission of offence of rape.

4. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of sessions and vide order dated
10.10.1985 the charges against the accused were framed for alleged commission of offence
punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused had examined five witnesses
namely, Katwari-victim (P.W.-1), Ramchandar (P.W.-2), S.I. Mukteshwar Singh (P.W.-3), Dr.
S.D.P. Gupta (P.W.-4) and Dr. B. Kumar (P.W.-5). Besides, the prosecution also adduced
documentary evidence i.e. written complaint (Exb.Ka-1), site plan (Exb.Ka-2), recovery memo
(Exb.Ka-3), Charge Sheet (Exb.Ka-4), check report (Exb.Ka-5), Carbon Check report (Exb.Ka-6),
X-Ray report (Exb.Ka-7), medical report (Exb.Ka-8) and supplementary medical report (Exb.Ka-
1214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9), which were proved by the relevant witnesses prosecutrix (P.W.-1), Investigating Officer-
Mukteshwar Singh, Dr. B. Kumar (P.W.-5) and Dr. S.D.P. Gupta (P.W.-4).

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused-appellant was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 13.11.1986, who denied the prosecution evidence and
pleaded false implication. No evidence was adduced by the accused-appellant in defence.

7. Upon analyzing the prosecution case, evidence and other material on record, the trial
court proceeded to convict the appellant-accused under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to
seven years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 9.12.1986, the appellant preferred this appeal.

8. Mr. Ronak Chaturvedi, Advocate being Amicus Curiae appeared on behalf of appellant
and argued that the complainant has falsely implicated the appellant in this case at the behest of
witnesses namely, Ramchandar Singh and Gayatri Singh, who have a dispute with appellants
father namely, Bansh Gopal Singh and father of prosecutrix namely, Rampati Kahar was an
employee of both these persons. Learned counsel submits that there are material contradictions in
the statements of prosecution witnesses as Ramchandra (P.W.-2) does not mention about the
presence of the mother of the prosecutrix at the place of occurrence, whereas prosecutrix (P.W.-1)
stated that on hearing her cries, her mother alongwith Gayatri Singh arrived at the spot. Learned
counsel for the appellant has referred to the site plan to argue that according to the version of
prosecutrix (P.W.-1), her mother was working at Point-D, which is vacant land of the accused from
where she alongwith Gayatri Singh arrived at the spot, and the witness Ram Chandra (P.W.-2), who
was working at Point-C also reached there, but the presence of the mother and Gayatri Singh is not
mentioned by Ram Chandra (P.W.-2) in his deposition before the trial court.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though according to the prosecution,
mother of the prosecutrix alongwith Gayatri Singh arrived at the place of occurrence, but during
trial they were not examined as prosecution witnesses and this omission renders the prosecution
case doubtful. Learned counsel has argued that the medical evidence does not conclusively support
the prosecution case as Dr. B. Kumar (P.W.-4) in her deposition clearly mentioned that the injuries
suffered by the prosecutrix could be caused by a fall also. Learned counsel submits that the
evidence adduced by the prosecution suffers from major discrepancies and the onus has not been
discharged by the prosecution beyond doubt, therefore, the benefit of doubt ought to have been
extended to the accused by the trial court. He prays that the impugned judgment of conviction as
well as order of sentence dated 9.12.1986 be set aside, and the appellant be acquitted of the
charges.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I has argued that the material
witness P.W.-1 (prosecutrix) has candidly supported the prosecution case by identifying the
accused involved in commission of crime against her, and further, the victim suffered injuries as a
result of use of force by accused, which are proved by Dr. B. Kumar (P.W.-5). Learned A.G.A. has
referred to the testimony of Dr. S.D.P. Gupta, Radiologist (P.W.-4) to argue that the age of the
prosecutrix was below 15 years., therefore, according to him, the prosecution evidence has proved
the charges against the accused beyond doubt, and analyzing the entire evidence on record, the trial
4 All. Amar Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1215
court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. He prays that the appeal be
dismissed.

11. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their assistance, case
file and the trial court record has been perused carefully.

12. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their
submissions, this Court finds that the appellant was put to trial for raping the prosecutrix
(victim) by use of force and the occurrence took place in an agricultural field where the
victim was grazing her goat and accused came there and committed the alleged crime. The
entire case of the prosecution relating to the occurrence dated 7.10.1984 at around 5:00
p.m. is primarily based on the testimony of the prosecutrix. A perusal of complaint dated
8.10.1984 (Exb.Ka-1) shows that the victim specifically named the accused-appellant, who
raped her and as a result of commission of crime, she suffered profuse bleeding and
injuries. The version contained in F.I.R. is reiterated by the prosecutrix when she appeared
during trial as P.W.-1. This material witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by
the defence, but her testimony has gone unimpeached and the witness candidly stood by
her stand, accusing the appellant involved in commission of crime against her.

13. According to the version of the prosecutrix, when her goat was grazing, her
mother was also working at some distance nearby a field and accused-appellant was also
working in his agricultural field. The witness deposed that the accused forcibly put her on
the ground and after lifting her clothes raped her. The prosecution case is further supported
by the medical evidence as well as medical examination of victim conducted on 8.10.1984
at Women Hospital, Azamgarh (Exb.Ka-8) reveals that her pervaginal examination shows
laceration (lacerated wound 0.5 cm X 0.3 cm X muscle deep over the vagina). The medical
report by Dr. B. Kumar (P.W.-5) has mentioned that the victim suffered bleeding and her
hymen was freshly torn (ruptured). Fourchette was also lacerated with 0.3 cm X 0.3 cm X
muscle deep injury and pervagina examination was painful.

14. Apart from this, injury was found present in the shape of abrasion on both sides
of laviamajora as well as over laviaminora. In addition to the above injuries, the
medical examination of the prosecutrix was further extended to analyze her age and as per
medical report (Exb.Ka-9), her age was found to be below 15 years.

15. The prosecution has further relied upon the evidence of independent witness
namely, Ramchandra (P.W.-2), who had arrived at the place of occurrence on hearing the
screams of prosecutrix and a reading of his testimony would show that he found the
prosecutrix naked and bleeding. The accused was attempting to wipe off the blood, who on
seeing the witness, ran away from the spot. This witness has also specifically mentioned
about the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence and particularly his conduct
after commission of crime. Though, the accused had set up a defence that the father of
prosecutrix namely, Rampati was an employee of Ramchandra (P.W.-2) and Gayatri Singh,
who had also arrived at the place of occurrence, but was not examined as a witness, who
had a dispute with Bansh Gopal (father of accused), therefore, at the instance of Gayatri
1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh and Ramchandra, the appellant-accused was falsely implicated. In this context, the
reliance has been placed upon a certified copy of complaint dated 13.10.1983 (Exb.Kha-1),
wherein it was alleged that goat of Rampati entered their field and when Bansh Gopal was
taking it to the cattle home, he forcibly snatched the goat, but there is nothing on record to
suggest that the said complaint was ever acted upon. Even otherwise, the alleged dispute
between Bansh Gopal (father of accused) and Ramchandra etc. may not be of much
significance to the subject occurrence leading to the prosecution of the accused.

16. Further, assumably if, the said defence is true, the complainant would falsely
implicate Bansh Gopal instead of his son, but the evidence on record actually proves the
presence of the accused-appellant at the place of occurrence. The bleeding suffered by the
victim is proved by the medical evidence beyond doubt and further, the clothes worn by the
victim at the time of occurrence, got blood stains, which were also produced before the
trial court as case property.

17. Merely, because the mother of the prosecutrix and Gayatri Singh, who had also
arrived at the place of occurrence were not examined by prosecution would not throw any
doubt on the version of the prosecution case, particularly in the light of the testimony of
prosecutrix (P.W.-1). As noticed above, the evidence and material witnesses (P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2) have clearly proved the involvement of the accused-appellant in commission of
crime, the appellant-accused cannot derive any benefit for non examination of the mother
of the prosecutrix and Gayatri Singh.

18. The last argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the
injuries suffered by the victim could be a result of fall is also without any merit, as the
suggestion put to Dr. B. Kumar (P.W.-5) was not put to the victim, and on the contrary, the
suggestion by the defence that the prosecutrix suffered injury while urinating has been
specifically denied by her. Most importantly, a perusal of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 9.12.1986 would show that the trial court has
carefully examined the facts, circumstances and evidence on record to ascertain the
involvement of the accused-appellant in commission of crime. The findings and
observations made by the trial court in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 9.12.1986 are founded upon proper appreciation of prosecution evidence as
well as material on record.

19. Further, it is not a case where the evidence adduced by prosecution gives
rise to any doubt, much less to favour the defence. The evidence adduced by the
prosecution is not only consistent to the guilt of the accused, but if, examined
conversely, it is inconsistent to his innocence as well. Consequently, this Court does
not find any meritorious ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 9.12.1986.

20. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the Court below forthwith.
---------
4 All. Raja @ Mohd. Alam & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1217
(2026) 4 ILRA 1217
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 8514 of 2024

Raja @ Mohd. Alam & Anr. .......Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether a cognizance and summoning order passed on a printed proforma by filling blanks
by hand, without proper application of judicial mind, is liable to be quashed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction
under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Paras 3, 5, 7, 10, 12).

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Cognizance and Summoning Order - Non-application of judicial mind - Passing of
order on printed proforma - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 - S. 14A(1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 323, 504, 506 - S. 3(1)(da) SC/ST Act -
Cognizance or summoning order cannot be passed in a mechanical manner or by filling up blanks
on a printed proforma and must reflect application of judicial mind to facts and law - Impugned
summoning order was a typed proforma wherein blanks relating to particulars of accused, case
crime number and statutory provisions were filled in by hand - Such order suffers from nonapplication of judicial mind and is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. (Paras 2, 7, 10,
12).
Held: That the Court, having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and learned
A.G.A. and perused the record - found that despite service of notice upon opposite party no.2 and absence of
appearance, the appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenged the charge-sheet dated 22nd May, 2022 and cognizance/summoning order
dated 23rd November, 2022 - and on perusal of the certified copy of the summoning order it was found to be
a typed proforma with blanks filled in handwriting, showing mechanical exercise without application of judicial
mind - relying upon Ankit vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in JIC 2010 (1) 432 and settled law that
cognizance orders require application of judicial mind and cannot be passed by filling blanks on printed
proforma - as well as earlier decisions including Megh Nath Gupta & another vs. State of U.P. and another
2008 (62) ACC 826 and other Supreme Court authorities - held that the impugned order suffers from nonapplication of judicial mind, is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed with direction for fresh consideration -
Appeal allowed. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12). (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Ankit vs. State of U.P. and another, JIC 2010 (1) 432; Megh Nath Gupta & another vs. State of U.P. and
another 2008 (62) ACC 826; Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export vs. Roshan Lal Agrawal 2003 (46)
ACC 686 (SC); U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Mohan Meakins AIR 2000 SC 1456; Kanti Bhadra vs. State
of West Bengal 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC)

List of Acts
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Indian Penal Code, 1860