# Jagannath v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1172
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1912 of 1986
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagannath-v-state-of-u-p-54712
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
97. Thus, the present appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and
sentence of the appellants by impugned judgment and order dated 30.6.1984 is affirmed. The
appellants Lakhi Pal, Satya Pal and Rishi Pal are on bail. Their personal bonds and bail bonds are
cancelled and sureties discharged. They are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court
within two weeks from today to undergo their sentences, failing which, the Trial Court is directed
to adopt coercive measures for securing their presence.

98. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Trial Court concerned along with the Trial
Court record for information and necessary compliance.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1172
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1912 of 1986

Jagannath ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to whether benefit of probation be extended in conviction for offence of attempt to rape.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-Section 376; Probation of Offenders Act, 1958-attempt to commit rape-no injury
suffered by the victim-medical evidence cannot be said to have favoured the accused-nature of offence and
sentence imposed by the trial court-appropriate to extend the concession of Probation to the appellant under
Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958-on employment of Section 511 IPC-the punishment for the
offence, for which an attempt has been made, would be for a term which may extend to one half of the
longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence-for offence under Sections 376/511 IPC- could be
awarded imprisonment up to 10 years-case for probation clearly made out- upholding the impugned judgment
of conviction -sentence is modified. Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
State of Haryana Vs. Prem Chand, (1997) 7 SCC 756

List of Acts
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

List of Keywords
Attempt to rape; benefit of probation; Section 57 of the IPC.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Chetan Chatterjee, K.K. Tripathi;
4 All. Jagannath Vs. State of U.P.
1173
Counsel for Respondents(s) : A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Appellant- Jagannath is aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 8.7.1986 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 336 of 1985,
arising out of Case Crime No. 376 of 1985, under Section 376 IPC, registered at Police Station
Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby he has been convicted under Sections 452, 376/511 IPC,
and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment.

2. The subject F.I.R. was registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 25.6.1985
submitted by Birju to Station House Officer Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, who alleged that he
works in Ordinance Factory and as usual today on 25th June, 1985, he had gone for his work at
6:00 a.m. The wife of the appellant had gone to handle the cow-dung, whereas his 13 years old
minor daughter was at home. Around 10:00 a.m. appellants neighbour Jagannath s/o Bhajan Lal
entered his house and started doing wrong act with his minor daughter. When complainants
daughter screamed, Laxmi Narayan s/o Babu Lal and Kishanlal s/o Ganga Ram arrived at the spot
and Jagannath ran away. Complainant returned home around 7:30 p.m. and his daughter and wife
disclosed about the entire incident, then they all traced Jagannath and brought him to the police
station. The complainant requested for taking legal action against him. Broadly, on these
allegations, the above F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 376 of 1985 was registered against the
accused.

3. After registration of the F.I.R., the investigation in the case was conducted by
Investigating Officer namely, Mamta Vidyarthi, Sub Inspector, who associated complainant Birju
to inspect the spot of occurrence for preparation of the site plan. On 28.6.1985 Sri K.P. Goswami,
S.I. conducted further investigation and recorded the statements of victim, complainants wife
Vimla, as well as witnesses, namely Laxmi Narayan, Kishan Lal and Rampal. During investigation,
the victims medical report dated 26.6.1985 was collected 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 offences punishable under Section(s) 376/511 I.P.C (Exb. Ka-5).

4. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur
Nagar and vide order dated 18.11.1985, the charges against the accused were framed for alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376/511 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 seven witnesses
namely, Laxmi Narain (P.W.-1), Kishanlal (P.W.-2), Km. Sanjai (victim) (P.W.-3), Birju
(complainant) (P.W.-4), Dr. S. Jabin (P.W.5), Constable Sonelal (P.W.-6), S.I. K.P. Goswami
(P.W.-7), Dr. R.K. Gupta, Senior Radiologist (P.W.8) and Km. Mamta Vidyarthi (P.W.9). Besides,
the prosecution also adduced documentary evidence i.e. written complaint (Exb.Ka-1), medical
report of the victim (Exb.Ka-2), Check FIR (Exb. Ka-3), G.D. entry (Exb. Ka-4), Charge-sheet
(Exb. Ka-5), site plan (Exb. Ka.6) and X-ray plate (Ex.1).
1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused-appellant was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 6.5.1986, who denied the prosecution evidence and pleaded
false implication. However, no defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

7. Upon analyzing the prosecution case, evidence and other material on record, the trial
court proceeded to convict the appellant-accused under Sections 452 & 376/511 I.P.C. and awarded
substantive sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 8.7.1986, the appellant preferred this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution to prove the charges against the accused is neither sufficient nor convincing, as the
same does not take away the doubts from the prosecution case, therefore, conviction of appellant is
not sustainable. Learned counsel submits that the FIR was registered after a long delay on
25.06.1985 at 11.35 p.m., whereas the occurrence had taken place at 10 a.m. Learned counsel has
argued that the alleged occurrence is not supported by any cognet medical evidence, and further the
complainant Birju- P.W.4 in his cross- examination denied his signatures on Ex.-1, i.e. the
complaint, whereupon the FIR was registered, therefore, the whole case of prosecution becomes
doubtful. He further submits that the accused after the alleged occurrence remained in the village
and never ran away, therefore, it would also prove his innocence, but the trial court without
noticing the serious discrepancies in the prosecution case has erroneously proceeded to convict the
appellant. He has further argued that prosecution witness Kishal Lal P.W.2, complainant Birju
P.W.4 and accused- Jagannath are members of a temple committee and they have a dispute,
therefore, the appellant was falsely implicated. He further submits that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 8.7.1986 is apparently against the evidence on record,
therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

9. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that in case, the conviction of
the appellant is upheld, some leniency be shown in the sentence part, which is disproportionate to
the guilt of the accused.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I has argued that the prosecution
evidence has convincingly proved the charges against the accused and the case of the prosecution is
based upon the evidence of prosecutrix P.W.3. He submits that the victim had identified the
accused, who attempted to rape her in her house and his presence is witnessed by the other
witnesses, namely, Laxmi Narayan P.W.1 and Kishan Lal P.W.2, as they had seen him running
away. He submits that the impugned judgment of conviction as well as order of sentence are based
upon proper appreciation of evidence on record, therefore, he prays that the appeal be dismissed.

11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this
Court finds that according to the prosecution, when the minor daughter of complainant Birju-
P.W.4 was alone at home, at around 10 a.m. accused- Jagannath entered the house and finding the
victim alone, he bolted the door and attempted to rape her. As per the version of the prosecutrix, he
pulled strings of her bottom (Salwar) and attempted to rape by gagging her mouth, but on her
screams, the accused ran away from the spot, who was seen by Laxmi Narayan P.W.1 and Kishan
Lal P.W.2 as they had reached at the place of occurrence. The prosecutrix in her deposition before
4 All. Jagannath Vs. State of U.P.
1175
the trial court has clearly narrated about the involvement of accused in the commission of crime
and presence of accused is also stated by witnesses Laxmi Naryan P.W.1 and Kishan Lal P.W.2.
Though, a suggestion is put to the prosecutrix that as there is a dispute amongst the members of the
temple committee consisting of witness complainant- Birju, witness Kishan Lal and accused
Jagannath, but that suggestion has been specifically denied by prosecutrix P.W.3 and defence has
not produced any evidence in order to lend support to the plea of false implication.

12. Further, the argument by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complaint Exb.
Ka-1 given by Birju P.W.4 to the police is disowned, who has denied his signature on the said
document during cross- examination, is also misplaced, as it is the consistent case of the
complainant and other witnesses that after this occurrence, accused Jagannath was traced by
complainant along with others and was produced before the police. Complainant Birju P.W.4 has
clearly stated that he is an illiterate person and the complaint was written by one Rampal, which
was signed by him. The signatures appended on the complaint would also show that the
complainant is barely able to write his name and the handwriting in the complaint is of someone
else. The Police Officer, namely, K.P.. Goswami P.W.7, who registered the FIR also testified
before the Court that the complaint was given by Birju, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the complaint by Birju Exb. Ka-1 cannot be doubted.

13. The document whereupon Birju P.W.4 denied his signatures is not the complaint given
to the police relating to the alleged occurrence dated 25.6.1985, but is a kind of apology allegedly
signed by him on 19.2.1982, that he had done something wrong with his daughter, but no
convincing evidence in this regard has been produced by the defence, and only suggestions were
put to the complainant and his daughter, which were clearly denied by them. A reading of the
document Ex.1 would clearly reveal that it is addressed to the Police Officer levelling allegations
against Birju having done something wrong with Vimla's daughter, but it is not signed by any
person. Of course, the alleged apology by Birju is signed at bottom, but he categorically denied his
signatures on this document. Most importantly, the said document is signed by various witnesses,
but the date of signatures of the witnesses is different which is recorded as 19.2.1983. Thus, the
defence adopted by the accused appellant relating to an event which is not connected with the
occurrence dated 25.6.1985, would not raise any doubt in the prosecution case.

14. No doubt, there is no injury suffered by the victim, but considering the nature of
occurrence, which is an attempt to commit rape, and the medical evidence cannot be said to have
favoured the accused or raising a doubt in the prosecution case, therefore, the said ground is also
without any merit. A perusal of the record would show that the trial court has rightly convicted the
appellant- accused by giving valid reasons in the impugned judgment dated 8.7.1986, therefore,
impugned judgment of conviction dated 8.7.1986 does not call for any interference.

15. However, considering the alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the
appellant, this Court finds that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1985 and this appeal is
pending for the last four decades, therefore, considering the long pendency of the appeal as well as
the fact that the appellant may have reached at the advanced age, who was 42 years old at the time
of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. this Court deems it appropriate to modify the
sentence imposed upon the appellant.
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16. The law regarding concession of probation in cases of attempt to commit an offence
punishable with life imprisonment stands clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana Vs. Prem Chand, (1997) 7 SCC 756, and the relevant extract of the judgment is
reproduced here as under:-

 3. If the conviction of the appellant were to be one under Section 376 IPC he could have
been awarded imprisonment for life or one extending to 10 years. But the offence for which the
respondent has been found guilty, is for attempt to rape. Therefore, it is idle to contend that the
respondent has been held guilty for an offence which would attract imprisonment for life,
disentitling him to the benefit of probation under the aforementioned two statutes. Section 57 of the
IPC clearly points out that in calculating fractions of terms of imprisonment, imprisonment for life
shall be reckoned as imprisonment for 20 years. Thus, on employment of Section 511 IPC, the
punishment for the offence, for which an attempt has been made, would be for a term which may
extend to one half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence. Therefore, for
offence under Sections 376/511 IPC, the respondent could be awarded imprisonment up to 10
years. On this reasoning, his case for probation was clearly made out, be it under Section 360
CrPC or under Section 4 of the Probation Act. The Court of Session, therefore, was not wrong in
extending to him such benefit and the High Court committed no error in declining to interfere
therein. The appeal thus has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

17. Thus, considering the nature of offence as well as the sentence imposed upon the
convict by the trial court, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of Probation to
the appellant under Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, keeping in view the law on the
subject.

18. Consequently, the order of sentence dated 8.7.1986 is modified and it is ordered that
the appellant be released on probation for a period of one year subject to his furnishing the requisite
bonds/undertaking to the satisfaction of the trial court.

19. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed, and while upholding the impugned judgment
of conviction dated 8.7.1986, an even date order on sentence is modified to the above noted extent.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1176
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1924 of 2013

Ashiq ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent