# Anju v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1770
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-04
- **Bench:** Mrs. Ranjana Pandya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anju-v-state-of-u-p-43823
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC (Kidnapping and Rape), where he was sentenced to up to 7 years of rigorous
imprisonment.

Para 2-5: Summarizes the prosecution's case: Patiram (informant) alleged his minor daughter was kidnapped
by Anju on March 11, 2012. It details the medical examinations, the ossification test for age determination,
and the investigative steps taken by the police.

Para 6-9: Outlines the accused's denial under Section 313 Cr.P.C., asserting false implication due to extortion.
The defense argued there was an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.

Para 10-15: Analyzes the FIR delay. While the incident allegedly occurred on March 11, the report was
officially registered on March 17. The Court finds the informant's explanation for the 6-day gap "untenable,"
casting "shadow of doubt" on the entire case.
5 All. Anju Vs State Of U.P.

1771
Para 16-20: Addresses the victim's age. Although a High School certificate was claimed to exist (making her a
minor), it was never produced in court. Relying on medical ossification tests, the Court concludes the victim
was likely around 18 years old and above the age of consent.

Para 21-25: Discusses the legal standards for a prosecutrix's testimony. The Court notes that while such
testimony is held in high regard, it
must still be "unreproachable" and logical to sustain a conviction without corroboration.

Para 26-27: Questions the recovery of the victim. The Investigating Officers could not specify where or how
she was recovered, and the victim's claim of being left alone at a busy square by her captors was deemed
"indigestible" and "untrustworthy."

Para 28-30: Highlights contradictions between the victim's court testimony and her previous statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. regarding the locations visited (Ludhiana vs. Moradabad), making the prosecution's case
doubtful.

Para 31-33: Critiques the victim's conduct. She traveled via crowded trains and tempos and stayed in public
places without raising an alarm
or seeking help, despite the accused being unarmed.

Para 34-37: Final Order: The Court finds the victim's story "fanciful" and "wholly unreliable." The appeal is
allowed, the conviction and sentences are set aside, and the appellant is ordered to be released from jail
immediately.

List of Citations

Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 3 SCC 791.
Tameezuddin @ Tammu Vs. State of (NCT) of Delhi, (2009) 15 SCC 566.
Rajoo Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 858.
Mohd. Ali @ Guddu Vs. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 272.
Musauddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2010 SC 3813.

## Text

1770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
40. The appellants Jagbhan Singh, Durg Singh and Lakha Singh are on bail their bail bonds
and surety bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. They shall be taken into custody to served
out the sentence awarded by the trial Court.

41. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Sessions Judge, Lalitpur for ensuring
complaince.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 2660 Of 2015

Anju ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsels for the Appellant:
Shri Rajiv Kumar Saini, Shri Shailesh Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Held -

Para 1: Details the appeal against the 2015 conviction of Anju by the Sessions Court, Saharanpur, under
Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC (Kidnapping and Rape), where he was sentenced to up to 7 years of rigorous
imprisonment.

Para 2-5: Summarizes the prosecution's case: Patiram (informant) alleged his minor daughter was kidnapped
by Anju on March 11, 2012. It details the medical examinations, the ossification test for age determination,
and the investigative steps taken by the police.

Para 6-9: Outlines the accused's denial under Section 313 Cr.P.C., asserting false implication due to extortion.
The defense argued there was an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR.

Para 10-15: Analyzes the FIR delay. While the incident allegedly occurred on March 11, the report was
officially registered on March 17. The Court finds the informant's explanation for the 6-day gap "untenable,"
casting "shadow of doubt" on the entire case.
5 All. Anju Vs State Of U.P.

1771
Para 16-20: Addresses the victim's age. Although a High School certificate was claimed to exist (making her a
minor), it was never produced in court. Relying on medical ossification tests, the Court concludes the victim
was likely around 18 years old and above the age of consent.

Para 21-25: Discusses the legal standards for a prosecutrix's testimony. The Court notes that while such
testimony is held in high regard, it
must still be "unreproachable" and logical to sustain a conviction without corroboration.

Para 26-27: Questions the recovery of the victim. The Investigating Officers could not specify where or how
she was recovered, and the victim's claim of being left alone at a busy square by her captors was deemed
"indigestible" and "untrustworthy."

Para 28-30: Highlights contradictions between the victim's court testimony and her previous statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. regarding the locations visited (Ludhiana vs. Moradabad), making the prosecution's case
doubtful.

Para 31-33: Critiques the victim's conduct. She traveled via crowded trains and tempos and stayed in public
places without raising an alarm
or seeking help, despite the accused being unarmed.

Para 34-37: Final Order: The Court finds the victim's story "fanciful" and "wholly unreliable." The appeal is
allowed, the conviction and sentences are set aside, and the appellant is ordered to be released from jail
immediately.

List of Citations

Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 3 SCC 791.
Tameezuddin @ Tammu Vs. State of (NCT) of Delhi, (2009) 15 SCC 566.
Rajoo Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 858.
Mohd. Ali @ Guddu Vs. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 272.
Musauddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2010 SC 3813.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 30.5.2015 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 565 of 2012 (State Vs. Anju
and Others) arising out of Crime No. 101 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police
Station-Deoband, District-Saharanpur, whereby all the accused except Anju was acquitted.
Consequently, the accused-appellant Anju were convicted to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.
2,000/- fine under Section 363 I.P.C.; 4 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2,000/- fine under
Section 366 I.P.C. and 7 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine under Section 376 I.P.C.
with default stipulation.
1772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Patiram lodged a written report on
12.3.2012 stating that on 11.3.2012 at 5:00 p.m. his minor daughter was taken away by accusedappellant Anju with illegal intentions. The accused was seen taking away the girl by Vicky and
Dharmendra. The informant searched for his daughter, when both the witnesses told him that they
had seen the accused taking away his daughter. Complaint was also made to the father of the
accused, who did not pay any heed. Hence, F.I.R. was lodged.

3. On the basis of this written report, Constable 428 Lakshman Singh, P.W. 5 scribed the
chik report, which was proved by this witness as Exhibit Ka-6. This witness further proved the
copy of the G.D. as Exhibit Ka-7. P.W. 8 Dr. Surendra Singh, who conducted the ossification test on
the victim and proved the radiological report as Exhibit Ka-14. He further proved x-ray plate as
material Exhibit-1. Dr. Madhu Agrawal, P.W. 4 medically examined the victim. She did not find
any marks of injury on the external or internal part of the victim. The hymen was old, torn and
healed and the vagina was admitting two fingers easily. The slide of vaginal smear was prepared
and sent for medical examination. This witness proved the medical report as Exhibit Ka-3,
pathological report as Exhibit Ka-4 and the supplementary report as Exhibit Ka-5 respectively.

4. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Patiram, the informant, who proved the written report
as Exhibit Ka-1. P.W. 2 is the victim, who proved her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
P.W. 3 is Vickey, who is said to have seen the accused taking away the victim. P.W. 6 is Sub
Inspector Om Prakash, who recorded the statement of the victim. He copied the statement of the
victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The victim was handed over to her father. The memo
was prepared and proved by this witness as Exhibit Ka-8.

5.On 17.3.2012, this witness inspected the spot at the pointing out of the informant. He
prepared the site plan and proved it as Exhibit Ka-9. After that this witness was transferred. Further
investigation was conducted by P.W. 7 S.I. Chandra Veer, who perused the C.D. He recorded the
statement of the accused in jail. He prepared the memo, which was proved as Exhibt Ka10. He
proved Exhibit Ka-11 and Ka-12. The investigation was ended into a charge-sheet, which was
proved by this witness as Exhibit Ka-13.

6.After the prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of the accused was recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused stated that the informant extorts money from
people and he lives at different places. The accused-appellant further stated that he had been falsely
implicated in this case, but no defence evidence was adduced.

7. After hearing counsel for the parties, learned lower court found the accused guilty and
sentenced him as has been specified in Para 1 of the judgement.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has come in appeal.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the trial court record.
5 All. Anju Vs State Of U.P.

1773
8. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the findings of the fact recorded by the trial court is
based on evidence available on record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that there is inordinate delay in lodging the
F.I.R., hence there is likelihood of embezzlement and false implications in the first information
report.

10. Perusal of the record shows that the victim was missing from her house since 11.3.2012
at 5:00 p.m. The report was lodged on 15.3.2012 at 3:30 p.m. about six days after the incident. The
police station was 4 k.m. away from the place of occurrence as is evidence from the perusal of the
chik report Exhibit Ka-6. As far as delay is concerned, the F.I.R. date typed is 12.3.2012, but the
seal of the police station shows that it was presented at the police station on 17.3.2012, on which
date crime number was allotted. In the F.I.R, the informant has stated that Vicky and Dharmendra
told him that his daughter was taken away by Anju, hence he lodged the report.

11. Perusal of the Tehriri report Exhibit Ka-1 makes it very clear that on 12.3.2012
definitely the informant had come to know about the names of the accused persons and that his
daughter was missing. As far as delay is concerned the informant P.W. 1 Patiram has stated that
when the accused took the victim, his two younger children were present in the house, when he
returned to his house at 7:00 p.m., he found the victim missing. When he searched for his daughter
Dharmendra and Vicky told him that they had seen the victim going away with Anju. After that he
went to the house of the Anju, where he met Anju's father Prahalad, when he was asked about the
girl, he kept silence, at this the informant returned home, since it was about 8:00 p.m.

12. Next day morning at 10:11 a.m. he went to police station-Deoband. He got application
typed outside the police station and gave the application at the police station. The police assured the
informant that they would investigate the matter and asked him to go. But his report was lodged
after many days. In the particular case, the name of the accused had come to the knowledge of the
informant on the same day, but he has stated that since it was 8:00 p.m., he did not go to the police
station. I do not understand that even on the next day early morning, he was not eager to lodge the
report and went lazily at 10 to 11 a.m. to the police station. The averment of the informant that he
gave the report at the police station, but the report was not lodged is not acceptable, because copy
of the G.D. Exhibit Ka-7 is also on record, which shows that it was only on 17.3.2012 when the
informant went with the written report to the police station.

13. It is apt to mention here that in rape cases the delay in filing the F.I.R. by the
prosecutrix or by the parents in all circumstance is not of significance. The authorities of this Court
have granted adequate protection/allowance in that aspect regard being had to the trauma suffered,
the agony and anguish that creates the turbulence in the mind of the victim, to muster the courage
to expose oneself in a conservative social milieu. Sometimes the fear of social stigma and on
occasions the availability of medical treatment to gain normalcy and above all the psychological
inner strength to undertake such a legal battle.
1774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. In (2013) 3 SCC 791 Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that :

"If the explanation of a delay in lodging the F.I.R. is untenable,then it cast a
shadow of doubt on the prosecution case."

15. There is no reason why the police would not have lodged the report, if they had
received the report on 12.3.2012. Thus, as stated in (2013) 3 SCC 791 Rajesh Patel Vs. State of
Jharkhand the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. against the appellant is fatal to the prosecution
case. This vital aspect regarding inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. makes the prosecution case
improbable to accept. Thus, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. stands unexplained, which cast a shadow
of doubt on whole prosecution story.

16. As far as age of the victim is concerned, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently stated that
as per the statement of the victim, her date of birth has mentioned in the high school certificate was
23.5.1998, hence admittedly she was a minor on the date of occurrence. Hence, her consent, if any,
is not carry any weight.

17. Per contra learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is procedure
described for determination of age even of the victim in cases of rape. Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, provides:-

12. Procedure to be followed in determination of age. -

(1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or
the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine
the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days
from the date of making of the application for that purpose.

(2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the
juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with
law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to
the observation home or in jail.

(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age
determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the
Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining

(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence
whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first
attended; and in the absence whereof;
5 All. Anju Vs State Of U.P.

1775
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat;

(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical
opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the
juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as
the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered
necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the
margin of one year.

and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such
evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in
respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses(a)(i),(ii), (iii) or in the
absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the
juvenile in conflict with law.

18. According to Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007,
the first preference should be given to the high school certificate admittedly and there is no quarrel
about this proposition of law. The victim has also admitted that she was having her high school
certificate and could produce it, according to which she is minor. But neither the prosecution
submitted high school certificate nor the trial court bothered to summon the high school certificate.
Withholding of the high school certificate by the prosecution leads to the inference that if the high
school certificate would have been produced, it would have gone against the prosecution. Hence, in
this regard adverse inference has to be withdrawn.

19. In the absence of the high school certificate on record and according to the list of
exhibits filed and proved before the trial court, the medical evidence has to be relied upon. Dr.
Surendra Singh, P.W. 8 conducted the ossification test on the victim and proved it as Exhibit Ka-3.
As per supplementary report Exhibit Ka-5 proved by Dr. Madhu Agrawal, P.W. 4, it reveals that the
epiphysis around the right elbow joint were fused, all the epiphysis around right knee joint were
fused, all the epiphysis of the right elna were fused while the epiphysis of right radius was almost
fused with some scar mark. Thus, as per Exhibit Ka-5 the Dr. Opined the age of girl to be about 18
years.

20. In the absence of matriculation certificate, this medical report would be admissible.
Thus, in all possibilities of the matter, the victim was above the age of consent at the time of
occurrence. Although, even if the victim is below 16 and her statement is not trustworthy and
unreliable, no useful purpose would be served by going further to determine her age, if the factual
aspect of the matter is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

21. In cases of rape, ordinary, the statement of the prosecutrix should be given due
consideration and importance infact the statement of the prosecutrix should be kept on a higher
pedestal, then that of an injured witness. I am quite conscious of the fact that in a matter of rape the
1776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statement of the prosecutrix must be given primary consideration. But at the same time the broad
principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a
case of rape and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story
truthfully.

22. In (2009) 15 SCC Page 566 (Para 9) Tameezuddin @ Tammu Vs. State of (NCT) of
Delhi, the Hon'ble Apex has observed that :-

"It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given
predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is
improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the
appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. We are of the opinion that story is indeed
improbable."

23. In AIR 2009 SC Page 858 Rajoo Vs. State of M.P., the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed that :

"Ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be
believed the more so as the statement has to be evaluated at par with that of an injured witness and
if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary."

 The court however further observed that

"It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to
the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and
damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false
implication. There is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness
is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration."

24. The courts while trying an accused on the charge of rape, must deal with the case with
utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor
contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses which are not of a
substantial character.

25. In (2015) 7 SCC Page 272 (Para 30) Mohd. Ali @ Guddu Vs. State of U.P. the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that :-

"True it is, the grammar of law permits that the testimony of a prosecutrix can be
accepted without any corroboration without material particulars, for she has to be placed on a
higher pedestal than an injured witness, but, if the Court had studied scrutiny of the evidence finds
it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix, because it is not unreproachable, there is
requirement for search of such direct or circumstantial evidence which would lend assurance to her
testimony."
5 All. Anju Vs State Of U.P.

1777
26. As far as the recovery of the victim is concerned, P.W. 1 Patiram, the father of the
victim has stated that he did not approach any senior police officer, when his report was not lodged.
The police telephoned him 7-8 days after the incident that his daughter had been recovered. He
received the telephone call at 10-11 a.m., but he does not remember the date. There is no recovery
memo on record. The investigating officer P.W. 6 S.I. Om Prakash has stated that the victim was
given in custody of her father, but where she was recovered with whom, if any, she was recovered
is wanting in the statement of P.W. 6 S.I. Om Prakash and P.W. 7 S.I. Chandra Veer. P.W. 7 has
stated that he does not know from where the victim was recovered. He does not know in whose
Supurdigi the victim was given and he also does not know whether the previous I.O. prepared the
site plan of the place of recovery or not.

27. The victim, P.W. 2, has stated that she was taken to Moradabad, where she stayed for 23 days. From there Prahalad, Minakshi and unknown accused person took her to Deoband by train
and left her at Subhash Chawk, Deoband. From there she was recovered by the police. This
statement of the victim is indigestible and untrustworthy, because if it was the intention of the
accused to leave the victim alone at Deoband, there was no reason why they would bring her from
Moradabad by train to Deoband and they would leave her alone at Deoband. They would very well
have left the victim at Moradabad itself, thus, the recovery of the victim too is also doubtful. As far
as the occurrence is concerned the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
which was proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-2, in which she has stated that the accused-appellant
Anju, his mother, father and sister all having threatened her and taken her away.

28. According to her statement Mukesh, Prahlad, Minakshi etc. Left her at Subhash Chawk,
Saharanpur on 20.3.2012. From 11.3.2012 to 20.3.2012 the victim remained with the accusedappellant and his family members. She travelled by different conveyance to different parts of the
State, but did not raise alarm on the pretext that she was threatened that her brother and family
members would be killed. This explanation is not acceptable, because the accused himself was
present with the victim and he had not threatened her that he will sent somebody to kill her brother
and father. When the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was put to her, she
accepted that she had stated to the Magistrate. No doubt the statement of a person recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. is only a previous statement and that person can be contradicted by his previous
statement, which was done in this case by contradicting the victim P.W. 2 in her statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she has admitted that the Magistrate has recorded her
statement, but she has stated that she did not tell the Magistrate that Anju took her away on a
motorcycle to Ludhiana and she could not explain why this statement figured in her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

29. Further when she was corroborated by her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., she has not stated that they lived at Moradabad for 4 days and she could not explain how it
was written in the statement. I am sorry, I am not inclined to disbelieve the statement written by the
Magistrate, because there is no reason to think why a Magistrate would record an incorrect
statement.
1778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30. In AIR 2010 SC Page 3813 Musauddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed that :

"If there are serious contradictions in the deposition of the victim before the court
and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it would make the prosecution case
doubtful."

31. Coming to the statement of the victim P.W. 2, in which she has stated that at 5 O'clock
Anju, his father Prahlad, his mother Munees and Minakshi, sister of Anju came to her house and
took her away by threatening to kill her and her brother. They took her to the Deoband railway
station. After that Anju made her sit in the train and threatened to kill her brother, if she would raise
alarm. Anju took her to Ludhiana. They travelled by Tempo from the railway station, where she
was raped by her consent. In the next breath she has stated that for 2 to 3 days, she was raped by
Anju against her consent. After that Anju brought her to Moradabad, while she was at Ludhiana,
Prahlad and Minakshi came to her, but they did not say anything to her. There is no reason why
when a girl is being raped by a boy, why his father and sister would come to see the victim for no
rhyme or reason. Further, she has stated that Minakshi and Anju took her to Moradabad by train,
where she was kept in a room and was again raped.

31. Next day, Prahlad being father of the accused and Anju also came at Moradabad. The
victim was threatened with dire consequences, she stayed at Mordabad for 2 to 3 days, from there
she was taken to Deoband by Prahlad and Minakshi and she was left at Deoband. In crossexamination, she has stated that she did not know the accused persons from before, whereas the
father of the victim has stated that the accused persons are his neighbours.

32. The victim has further stated that she went by motorcycle from her house with Anju
and one unknown person. This unknown person is newly for the first time introduced in the
statement before the court. She has further stated that Anju purchased the ticket. He stood in the
line to get the ticket, why at this point of time alarm was not raised is a million dollar question,
which remained unanswered throughout the trial. The victim has further admitted that the railway
station was crowded. Trying to be very innocent, she has stated that she did not know whether Anju
was carrying any dangerous weapon or not.

33. I fail to understand if the accused is empty handed and the victim and accused both
travelled by tempo or train, even to other State then what prevented the victim from raising alarm.
The victim has further admitted that Anju used to give her fruit and breakfast. Anju also gave two
stitched suits, which she wore. Nobody else except the duo stayed in the room.

34. The victim P.W. 2 has further stated that at Moradabad Minakshi used to bring
breakfast and food and for the first time before the court during trial she has stated that when she
was taken from the house, her brother and sister aged about 9, 10 and 11 years respectively were
present in the house. Thus, the statement of the prosecutrix is wholly unreliable, untrustworthy
inadmissible and fanciful. P.W. 3 Vicky has stated that he did not see the accused taking away the
5 All. Murari Lal Gautam & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

1779
girl. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined by the prosecution, but
there is nothing significant in the cross-examination. Certain contradictions were pointed out to the
I.O. S.I. Om Prakash P.W. 6 and the victim P.W. 2. The I.O. has specifically stated that the victim
did not tell him that Prahlad, Mukesh and Minkashi collectively got the victim raped by Anju.
Thus, the contradiction, which have been put to the I.O. and the victim also cast a shadow of doubt
on the prosecution case. Thus, on the basis what has been stated above, I find that the learned lower
court has misled itself in reaching to the conclusion that the accused is guilty for the offence
charged. Thus, the accused is entitled to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

35. Hence the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence dated 30.5.2015 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 565 of 2012 (State Vs. Anju
and Others) arising out of Crime No. 101 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police
Station-Deoband, District-Saharanpur as far as it relates to the accused-appellant Anju, is hereby set
aside.

36. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith in this case. The provisions of
Section 437A Cr.P.C. shall be complied with.

37. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned.
----------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Revision No.- 3052 Of 2011

Murari Lal Gautam & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Shri Amit Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

Held -