# Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 878
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-31
- **Bench:** Mrs. Ranjana Pandya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-chandra-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-43986
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

prosecutrix and father - Unexplained delay in reporting - Medical evidence not supporting prosecution -
Contradictions regarding place, time and manner of occurrence - Prosecutrix found major - Evidence of
defence witness corroborating improbability - Benefit of doubt - Acquittal - Sections 343, 368, 376(2)(g),
506 IPC - Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act - Appreciation of evidence - False implication - Conviction set aside.

 The three afore-captioned criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated
15.04.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2002 (State of U.P. vs Mahesh Chandra Gupta and
others), hence they are being decided by this common order. (Para- 1)

The statement of the victim, even her recovery is doubtful, inasmuch as, she has stated that the
police brought her back to her house. She went with the police on 06.06.2002 to her house where she met
everybody. This is also the version of DW-1, Kishan Lal, who is said to have met the victim at Kanpur's court,
5 All. Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs State Of U.P.

879
who said that the victim stated that she would take the police to her father's house because he had assaulted
her. She reiterated that she went along with the police person to her house. Contradicting this statement, her
father Ram Sajiwan, PW-2 who has admitted himself to be the step father of the victim has stated that the
girl was sitting in the village near the well from where his wife brought the victim. A boy of the village had
informed him that the victim was sitting near the well. The victim was brought on 06.06.2002 by the mother
to the victim to the house. The victim did not come on her own accord to her house. The cross-examination of
this witness Ram Sajiwan, PW-2 was conducted on many dates. In the cross-examination conducted on
06.07.2005, the father of the victim contradicting his own statement.(Paras 28)

As per statement of Dr. Neeta Umashankar Dixit, PW-5, the victim did not sustain any external or
internal injuries on her body. Thus, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version because if
she would have been forcibly raped by two people, there would definitely have been swelling or any other
injuries on her body. PW-5, Dr. Neeta Umashankar Dixit has medically examined the victim. As per
supplementary medical report, proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-5, the age of the victim was about 18 years,
hence definitely she was above the age of consent at the relevant date. Although, the factum of rape has not
been proved beyond all the reasonable doubt. In cross-examination, Circle Officer, PW-4, Kamlesh Dixit has
stated that the victim had told him in her statement that she came on foot in the evening to her house. She
also stated that the accused-persons dropped her by truck near the village road and threatened to her.(Para
36)

Held:(Paras36-37, 38-40)

## Text

878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigating agency. They had not seen the deceased in the company of the accused persons. They
have been planted by the investigating agency. Prosecution story is based on incredible story and
the prosecution has miserably failed to established the guilt of the accused persons. The trial Court
has considered the evidence available on record and has critically appreciated the evidence. We are
also of the view that the conclusion of the trial Court cannot be said to be palpably wrong,
erroneous and unsustainable.

41. Consequently, for the reasons given above, we are of the view that the appeal has no
merit and is liable to be dismissed.

42. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 2675 Of 2014
&
Connected With Other Cases

Mahesh Chandra Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Rajesh Chandra Gupta, Mayank Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Appeal - Kidnapping and Rape - Delay in lodging FIR - Contradictory statements of
prosecutrix and father - Unexplained delay in reporting - Medical evidence not supporting prosecution -
Contradictions regarding place, time and manner of occurrence - Prosecutrix found major - Evidence of
defence witness corroborating improbability - Benefit of doubt - Acquittal - Sections 343, 368, 376(2)(g),
506 IPC - Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act - Appreciation of evidence - False implication - Conviction set aside.

 The three afore-captioned criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated
15.04.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2002 (State of U.P. vs Mahesh Chandra Gupta and
others), hence they are being decided by this common order. (Para- 1)

The statement of the victim, even her recovery is doubtful, inasmuch as, she has stated that the
police brought her back to her house. She went with the police on 06.06.2002 to her house where she met
everybody. This is also the version of DW-1, Kishan Lal, who is said to have met the victim at Kanpur's court,
5 All. Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs State Of U.P.

879
who said that the victim stated that she would take the police to her father's house because he had assaulted
her. She reiterated that she went along with the police person to her house. Contradicting this statement, her
father Ram Sajiwan, PW-2 who has admitted himself to be the step father of the victim has stated that the
girl was sitting in the village near the well from where his wife brought the victim. A boy of the village had
informed him that the victim was sitting near the well. The victim was brought on 06.06.2002 by the mother
to the victim to the house. The victim did not come on her own accord to her house. The cross-examination of
this witness Ram Sajiwan, PW-2 was conducted on many dates. In the cross-examination conducted on
06.07.2005, the father of the victim contradicting his own statement.(Paras 28)

As per statement of Dr. Neeta Umashankar Dixit, PW-5, the victim did not sustain any external or
internal injuries on her body. Thus, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version because if
she would have been forcibly raped by two people, there would definitely have been swelling or any other
injuries on her body. PW-5, Dr. Neeta Umashankar Dixit has medically examined the victim. As per
supplementary medical report, proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-5, the age of the victim was about 18 years,
hence definitely she was above the age of consent at the relevant date. Although, the factum of rape has not
been proved beyond all the reasonable doubt. In cross-examination, Circle Officer, PW-4, Kamlesh Dixit has
stated that the victim had told him in her statement that she came on foot in the evening to her house. She
also stated that the accused-persons dropped her by truck near the village road and threatened to her.(Para
36)

Held:(Paras36-37, 38-40)

1. As per statement of Dr. Neeta Umashankar Dixit, PW-5, the victim did not sustain any external or
internal injuries on her body. Thus, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version because if
she would have been forcibly raped by two people, there would definitely have been swelling or any other
injuries on her body. PW-5, Dr. Neeta Umashankar Dixit has medically examined the victim. As per
supplementary medical report, proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-5, the age of the victim was about 18 years,
hence definitely she was above the age of consent at the relevant date. Although, the factum of rape has not
been proved beyond all the reasonable doubt. In cross-examination, Circle Officer, PW-4, Kamlesh Dixit has
stated that the victim had told him in her statement that she came on foot in the evening to her house. She
also stated that the accused-persons dropped her by truck near the village road and threatened to her. The
whole prosecution story is unreliable, belies logic and the learned trial court misled itself in relying upon the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, which are contradictory to each other, which does not inspire confidence.
The complete testimony of the victim being unworthy of credence, unreliable and bundle of lies could not
have form the basis for the conviction of the accused on the basis of illegal and inadmissible evidence.

2. That the prosecution case is a bundle of false allegations and improbable facts, due to which the
learned trial court misled itself and has incorrectly convicted the accused, which conviction cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law. Thus, the accused is entitled to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be
allowed.Hence, the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.04.2014 passed by
the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Dehat
in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2002 (State of U.P. vs Mahesh Chandra Gupta and others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 189 of 2002, under Sections 343, 368, 376(2)(g) and 506 IPC, Police Station Sajeti, District Kanpur
Nagar, is, hereby, set-aside as against the present appellants.Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.

Case Law discussed:

Ramdas and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 155 - Para 23
Narendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171 - Para 30
Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 12 SCC 57 - Para 34
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.)

1. Since all the three afore-captioned criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment
and order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2002 (State of
U.P. vs Mahesh Chandra Gupta and others), hence they are being decided by this common order.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment and order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2002 (State of U.P. vs Mahesh Chandra Gupta and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 189 of 2002, under Sections 343, 368, 376 and 506 IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police
Station Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the accused appellants Mahesh Chandra Gupta and
Jagat Lal Sachan have been convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
1000/- each under Section 343 IPC and two years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each
under Section 506 IPC and accused-appellants Mahesh Chandra Gupta, Jagat Lal Sachan and
Mahaveer Chamar have also been convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment and a fine
of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 368 IPC and ten years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/each
under Section 376(2)(g) IPC with default stipulation.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that an application was given by the
informant Ram Sajiwan to the Commissioner, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Castes Tribes,
Commission, Lucknow to the effect that the informant is the resident of Kanpur Dehat and belongs
to scheduled caste. On 02.06.2002, he along with other family members had gone to attend the
marriage ceremony of his relative leaving his daughter, the victim in the house alone. On the same
day, a Barat also came in the house of Ram Babu. Mahesh s/o Chin Buddha Bharbhuja, Jagat Lal
s/o Girja Shanker Sachan, finding her daughter alone in the house, took her away forcibly on the
point of country made pistol. When he returned to his house, he did not find his daughter.
Thereafter, he made a search at the house of his relatives and friends, but she could not be traced
out. He informed the village Chaukidar about this incident at 02:00 in the night. In the morning, the
informant went to the police station and handed over a written report at the police station.
However, he continued the search of his daughter. On 04.06.2002, Mahgu and Kesan, resident of
his village, had gone to Kanpur civil court where they saw his daughter(the victim) along with the
aforesaid accused-persons. The victim was fearful. On being told by them, the informant informed
the police. In the meantime, on 06.06.2002, the victim returned her house. She told the informant
that she had danger to her life and the accused left her outside the village. The informant informed
this fact to the police, but as no action was taken by the police, he had given an application to the
Commissioner, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Lucknow on 10.06.2002, which he proved
it as Ext. Ka-1.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid information, first information report was registered at case
crime No. 189 of 2002, under Section 364 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and
5 All. Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs State Of U.P.

881
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred as SC and ST Act) against
Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Jagat Lal Sachan at Police Station Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar.

5. As the case pertained to SC and ST Act, the investigation of the case was entrusted to
Shri Kamlesh Dixit, Circle Officer, PW-4, who copied the written report and recorded the
statement of the chik scriber. On 10.07.2002, he recorded the statement of the informant. On
12.07.2002, he copied the medical report of the victim. He inspected the spot and prepared the site
plan, which was proved as Ext. Ka-2. After recording the statements of the witnesses and after
completing the necessary formalities, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons
Mahesh Chandra Gupta, Jagat Lal Sachan, Mahavir Chamar and Babli alias Ajay Kumar Sachan
under Sections 343, 504, 506, 376, 368, 120-B IPC read with section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of
the SC and ST Act, which was proved by this witness as Ext.Ka-3.

6. To bring home the guilt of the appellants the prosecution has examined as many as seven
witnesses.

7. PW-1 is the victim of the case. She deposed that on the date of incident at about 9-10
p.m., she was lying near her house. There was some light of Diya. Her parents had gone to attend
the marriage. She was alone in the house. A Barat had also come in the village. She was lying in
front of her house on the cot. It was the moonlight. First of all Mahavir came and awakened her.
When she awakened, she saw that Mahesh and Jagat were standing. On being enquired by her as to
what is the matter, Mahesh and Jagat asked her to come with them otherwise they will beat her.
When she tried to raise alarm, she was threatened on the point of country made pistol. They took
her to the tubewell of Dayali, where they locked her and committed rape on her against her wishes.
When they were committing rape, Mahavir was having a close vigil from the roof of the tubewell.
They took her to Kanpur Naubasti where Babli met them. They took her to the room of Babli where
again they committed rape on her. Thereafter, they took her to civil court where they took her
thumb impression on a blank paper. On seeing Kishan Lal, Mahgu and Ramesh of her village, the
accused-persons ran away.

8. PW-2 is Ram Sajiwan, the informant of the case. He reiterated the version mentioned in
the application given to the Commissioner, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission,
Lucknow.

9. PW-3 is Ram Asray, the village Chaukidar. He deposed that he belongs to scheduled
caste and he is the Chaukidar of police station Sajeti. On 02.06.2002, Ram Sajiwan came to him
and said that his daughter is missing and he has to lodge a report. This witness told Ram Sajiwan
that he has low eye-sight and he would accompany him in the morning to lodge the report. In the
morning Ram Sajiwan came to him and duo went to the police station and handed over a written
report to the Station Officer. This witness further deposed that Ram Sajiwan told him that in the
morning Mahesh and Jagat Pal had come and there is likelihood that they took the victim with
them.
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. The evidence of PW-4, C.O., Kamlesh Dixit has already been discussed above.

11. PW-5 is Dr. Neeta Umashankar Dixit, who has medically examined the victim. She
deposed that on 11.07.2002 she was posted at District Women Hospital, Kanpur as Medical
Officer. On that date, she has medically examined the victim at 11.30 A.M., who was brought by
C.P. 3351 Ram Kumar and C.P. 242 Usha Kamal. This witness further deposed that there was no
mark of injury on the body of the victim. There was no injury on her private part. Hymen was old
torn. Vagina was admitting two finger easily. Neither alive nor dead spermatozoa was found. She
prepared the injury report in her handwriting and signature, which she proved as Ext. Ka-4. On the
basis of the Radiological report, she prepared the supplementary report, which she proved as ExtKa 5. This witness further opined that no definite opinion about rape can be given as the victim was
habitual of intercourse.

12. PW-6 is Dr. Ashok Bajpai, the Radiologist, who conducted the X-Ray of the victim. He
proved the X-Ray report as Ext. Ka-6 and X-Ray plate as material Ext. 1.

13. PW-7 is S.I., Satendra Kumar, who proved the chik FIR as Ext. Ka-7 and relevant GD
entries as Ext. Ka-8.

14After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the occurrence and produced Kishan Pal as DW-1
in their defence.

15. Kishan Pal, DW-1 has stated that he knows Ram Sajiwan and his daughter, the victim.
On 04.06.2002, he had gone to the civil court along with his grandfather in connection with a case.
On his asking as to who are with you, she told him that she is alone. She told this witness that Ram
Sajiwan, PW-2 is her step father. He was marrying her with an old man after taking Rs. 20,000/-.
On her refusal to marry with the old man, he beat her and she has come here to make a complaint to
the Superintendent of Police.

16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned lower court convicted and
sentenced the accused as stated in para 2 of the judgement.

17. Feeling aggrieved, the accused have come up in appeal.

18. Heard Shri Mayank Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Shri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant Mahaveer Chamar and Ms. Urvashi Jain, Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant Jagat
Lal Sachan and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent and perused the
lower court record.
5 All. Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs State Of U.P.

883
19. Learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently argued that the charges framed
against the appellants have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The conviction is based
on inadmissible evidence and the appeals are liable to be allowed.
20. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the
findings of fact recorded by the trial court is based on evidence which is clear, cogent and
convincing. Hence, the appeals deserve dismissal.

Delay in lodging the FIR

21. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is an inordinate delay in
lodging the FIR. No explanation has been given for the delay. Hence, unexplained delay in lodging
the FIR is fatal for the prosecution.

22. Perusal of the FIR, Ext. Ka-1 reveals that as per the FIR, the incident took place on
02.06.2002. The occurrence was reported to the village chaukidar in the intervening night of
02/03.06.2002. On 04.06.2002, Mahgu and Kesan Lal told the informant that they had seen the
victim along with accused in the district court, Kanpur. On 06.06.2002, the victim came back
home. The application bears the date 10.06.2002, but there is nothing on record to elucidate that
this application was actually sent by registered post or dasti to the Commissioner, SC/ST Act
Commission, Lucknow. However, the informant PW-2 has stated that on 04.06.2002, Mahgu and
Kesan Lal had told him at 8:00 p.m. that they had seen the victim at Kanpur court with Jagat and
Mahesh. Even as per this witness, he has stated that on 6th June, 2002 when his daughter, the victim
returned home, she narrated the whole incident to her father. Why the matter was not reported till
6th June, 2002 remained unexplained throughout the trial. Besides, the village chaukidar was also
examined by the prosecution, as PW-3 Ram Asarey, who has stated that on 02.06.2002 he was
village chaukidar. The informant came to him and told that his daughter was missing and he wanted
to lodge report. This witness asked the informant that he would come on the next day. On the next
day, this witness accompanied the informant to the police out-check post. An application was given
to the Sub-Inspector. But neither the prosecution has filed copy of the application nor the GD has
been summoned to prove that such an application was actually moved or not. The informant Ram
Sajiwan, PW-2 has stated that when he accompanied the chaukidar to the police station, his report
was not lodged. Thereafter, he sent a report to the Lucknow Harijan Office. If, the informant had
sent any report to the Harijan Office at Lucknow, there was no reason why the copy of the report
was not filed. As per the record, typed copy of the application addressed to Commissioner SC/ST
Act Commission, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow was got registered on 09.07.2002. The endorsement of
the Commission which is also on 09.07.2002. There is nothing on record to show that this
application was actually sent on 10.06.2002. There is no reason why father of the victim did not
lodge a missing report when his daughter was missing since quite a couple of days. Thus, undue
delay in lodging the complaint without acceptable evidence contributes the doubt in the prosecution
case. In the present case also there is undue and unexplained delay on the part of the prosecution to
lodge the report, which causes a dent in the prosecution case and make prosecution case doubtful.

(ii) Testimony of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
23. In AIR 2007 Supreme Court 155, Ramdas and others vs State of Maharashtra, it has
been laid down that if the testimony of the prosecutrix is truthful and there exist no circumstances
which cast a shadow of doubt over her veracity then the allegation can be based solely on the
testimony of the prosecutrix.

24. As far as the testimony of the prosecutrix is concerned, the victim is PW-1, who has
stated that at the time of occurrence, there was light of diya. Her father PW-2 Ram Sajiwan was
also confronted with this position and he stated that at the place of occurrence a lantern was lighten.
In cross-examination again he reiterated that a lantern was lightening near the place of occurrence.
Thus, the source of light is different in the statements of the victim and her father PW-2.

25. As far as the occurrence is concerned, the victim has stated that she was alone at her
house and it was the night of full-moon, whereas her father PW-2 Ram Sajiwan has stated that it
was dark night.

26. The victim has further stated that initially Mahaveer came to her. When she woke up
Mahesh and Jagat were also standing near her. Mahesh and Jagat showed her a country made
pistol, on which the victim got frightened and accompanied them. Mahaveer, Mahesh and Jagat all
the three took her near a tubewell and raped her in spite of resistance. Mahaveer was on the guard.
This statement is not digestible because there was absolutely no reason for Mahaveer to be on the
guard whilst the other were raping the victim because as per version of the victim, the tube-well
was in a lonely place and room was locked and she could not raise any alarm. Hence, this assertion
of Mahaveer being on the guard has no legs to stand. The victim has further stated that from the
tube-well she was taken to Ghatampur railway line from where she was taken by truck to Naubasta,
Kanpur. They went to the room of Babli, where Mahesh and Jagat raped her again. From there,
they took her to the court, where her thumb impression was obtained on blank papers. She was
taken to the court on 04.06.2002. In crossexamination, she stated that Mahaveer did not rape her
nor Mahesh threatened her, even Babli did not threatened her, but Mahaveer was aiding the
accusedpersons. She was brought back from Kanpur by Mahaveer, Mahesh and Jagat. The victim
has stated that since the last 2-4 days, she was having fever, hence she did not go to attend the
marriage, whereas contradicting the victim, the father of the victim, namely, PW-2 Ram Sajiwan
has stated that the victim had no business in the marriage, hence she was not taken. She was not
sick. The statements of the victim and her father are totally in contradiction to each other. The
victim has further stated that hearing the sounds of fire, many people collected, but the accused
took her with them and fled away.

27. As far as the presence of the victim at the court in Kanpur is concerned, even the victim
had stated that when she went to the court on 04.06.2002, she met many police personnel and other
people. The accused did not permit her to raise alarm. She told the counsel also that she had been
enticed away, but he asked her not to speak like that. She also met Kishan Lal and Mahgu of her
village at the seat of the advocate. She told them that she was kidnapped and enticed away by the
accused and she requested them to take her to the village, but they refused and said that they would
inform her father. One of the aforesaid witness whom the victim met at the seat of the advocate was
5 All. Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs State Of U.P.

885
Kishan Lal, DW-1, who has also stated that he met the victim in the court at the seat of the
advocate. They asked the victim why she had come to the court and who accompanied her, at
which the victim told him that she had come alone. She further told them that Ram Sajiwan, PW-2
is her step father, who wanted to marry her to an old man after taking Rs. 20,000/-. She told them
that he also beat her. Hence, she had come to lodge a complaint against her father to the SP. This
witness has further stated that he asked the victim to accompany the village. On which, she asked
him that she would not come, but she would come with the police to her house. Two days after this,
the victim went with the police to her father's house. The police scolded Ram Sajiwan, PW-2 and
the victim was left at her father's house. No doubt, this witness was discharged by the prosecution,
but only because the witness was discharged by the prosecution will not be a ground to discredit the
evidence of this witness as a defence witness. Thus, the version of this witness appears to be more
correct because even the prosecution has come up with the stand that the victim was seen at the
court in Kanpur by DW-1 Kishan Lal and others.

28. Reverting back to the statement of the victim, even her recovery is doubtful, inasmuch
as, she has stated that the police brought her back to her house. She went with the police on
06.06.2002 to her house where she met everybody. This is also the version of DW-1, Kishan Lal,
who is said to have met the victim at Kanpur's court, who said that the victim stated that she would
take the police to her father's house because he had assaulted her. She reiterated that she went along
with the police person to her house. Contradicting this statement, her father Ram Sajiwan, PW-2
who has admitted himself to be the step father of the victim has stated that the girl was sitting in the
village near the well from where his wife brought the victim. A boy of the village had informed
him that the victim was sitting near the well. The victim was brought on 06.06.2002 by the mother
to the victim to the house. The victim did not come on her own accord to her house. The crossexamination of this witness Ram Sajiwan, PW-2 was conducted on many dates. In the crossexamination conducted on 06.07.2005, the father of the victim contradicting his own statement has
admitted and stated that "यह बात सही है कि मेरे घर मेरी लड़िी पुललस वाले छोड़ गये थे वहा पर मैं व
मेरी पत्नी थी।" Thus, there is a contradiction in the version given by the victim in her statement and
father of the victim in his statement.

29. The person who dictates the FIR can be contradicted with its contents. In this regard,
the informant was questioned as to why Mahaveer was not named in the FIR, at which the
informant has stated that since he was perturbed, he could not get the name of the appellant
Mahaveer typed in the application. Even, in the FIR, there is no allegation of rape and the statement
of the victim was never recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

30. Ms. Urvashi Jain, learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant Jagat Lal
Sachan has submitted that since the version of the prosecutrix is difficult to accept on its face value,
the court has to search for direct or substantial evidence, by which the statement of the victim can
be corroborated as has been laid down in 2012 (7) Supreme Court Cases 171, Narendra Kumar vs
State (NCT of Delhi).
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
31. In the present case, the version of the prosecutrix is improbable, contradicting to the
statement of her father and the statement of both daughter and father belies logic.

32. Learned counsel for the appellants have also submitted that step father of the victim
was trying to get her marry to an aged man and due to this, the victim left her house on her own
accord, which had substantiated and corroborated by evidence on record. Although, the victim PW1 has denied these averments, but Ram Sajiwan PW-2, step father of the victim has stated that in
the year 2002, he had settled the marriage of his daughter with the son of his sister, but he called
off the marriage because the age of the boy was too much and the name of the boy was Adhya
Sagar. As has been stated earlier, although the victim has denied arrangment of any such marriage,
but village chaukidar, PW-3, Ram Asraey has specifically stated that "यह बात सही है कि उसिी
शादी बूढ़े आदमी िे साथ हो रही थी इसललये वह लड़ती थी व िहीीं चली गयी थी।"

33. There is broad principle that the prosecutionhas to prove its case beyond all the
reasonable doubt which equally applies to rape cases also and there can be no presumption that the
prosecutrix would tell the entire story truthfully always.

34. The courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of rape are not
uncommon. There have also been rare instances where a parents has persuaded a gullible or
obedient daughter to make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get
rid of financial liability. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Radhu vs State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 12 SCC 57.

35. Another glaring feature in this case is that step father of the victim has, in so many
words, admitted that he lodged the report, which was typed by a man, who was told by his relative,
who told him that the girl would get money after this case. He admitted and said that " मुझे उस
ररश्तेदार आदमी ने बताया था कि इस मुिदमें िे बाद सरिार हमारी लड़िी िो पैसा देगी। मुझे िुछ पैसा
िरीब २५००० /- िी चेि आई थी जिसमें से २४५०० /- मुझे लमला था ५०० /- बैंि में खाता खुलाई िा ललया
था । लखनऊ िा आदमी हमारा ररश्तेदार नहीीं था। मैं नहीीं बता सिता कि वह आदमी वहा पर नौिरी
िरता था या नहीीं।" Thus, it appears that all the exercise was just done to obtain financial aid from
the Government.

36. As per statement of Dr. Neeta Umashankar Dixit, PW-5, the victim did not sustain any
external or internal injuries on her body. Thus, the medical evidence does not support the
prosecution version because if she would have been forcibly raped by two people, there would
definitely have been swelling or any other injuries on her body. PW-5, Dr. Neeta Umashankar Dixit
has medically examined the victim. As per supplementary medical report, proved by this witness as
Ext. Ka-5, the age of the victim was about 18 years, hence definitely she was above the age of
consent at the relevant date. Although, the factum of rape has not been proved beyond all the
5 All. Sadho Ram Singh Vs State Of U.P.

887
reasonable doubt. In cross-examination, Circle Officer, PW-4, Kamlesh Dixit has stated that the
victim had told him in her statement that she came on foot in the evening to her house. She also
stated that the accused-persons dropped her by truck near the village road and threatened to her.

37. The whole prosecution story is unreliable, belies logic and the learned trial court misled
itself in relying upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which are contradictory to each other,
which does not inspire confidence. The complete testimony of the victim being unworthy of
credence, unreliable and bundle of lies could not have form the basis for the conviction of the
accused on the basis of illegal and inadmissible evidence.

38. Thus, what has been stated and discussed above, I conclude that the prosecution case is
a bundle of false allegations and improbable facts, due to which the learned trial court misled itself
and has incorrectly convicted the accused, which conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Thus, the accused is entitled to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

39. Hence, the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.04.2014
passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2002 (State of U.P. vs Mahesh Chandra
Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 189 of 2002, under Sections 343, 368, 376(2)(g)
and 506 IPC, Police Station Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar, is, hereby, set-aside as against the
present appellants.

40. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.

41. The appellants-Mahesh Chandra Gupta, Mahaveer Chamar and Jagat Lal Sachan are in
jail. They shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. However, the appellants are
directed to comply with the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. forthwith.

42. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the Trial court concerned.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 2827 Of 2015

Sadho Ram Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: