# Pramod & Ors v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 553
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-28
- **Bench:** Bharat Bhushan, Alok Kumar Mukherjee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-ors-v-state-of-u-p-44133
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

7 All. Pramod & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.
553
 26. Both the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BHARAT BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ALOK KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 1577 Of 1983
&
Criminal Appeal No.- 1586 Of 1983

Pramod & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellants:
T.M. Rizvi, D.K. Tiwari, Sanjay Mishra

Counsel for Respondent:
A.G.A

Sexual Offences - Rape - Abduction - Sole testimony of prosecutrix - Credibility - Standard
of proof - Discrepancies - Benefit of doubt - Sections 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 228-A, IPC.

1. Sole testimony of prosecutrix - Reliability and credibility as the determinative test - No
corroboration required if testimony inspires confidence: It is settled legal position that the sole
testimony of a prosecutrix in a case of sexual assault can form the basis for conviction of the accused without
corroboration on material particulars, provided the testimony is cogent, credible, and trustworthy. The
prosecutrix of a rape case is not an accomplice after the crime. Her testimony must be appraised in the same
manner as the testimony of any other witness. Only when the Court finds it difficult to accept the version of
the prosecutrix at face value may it seek direct or circumstantial corroborative evidence. Minor contradictions
and insignificant discrepancies are not sufficient grounds for rejecting the testimony of the sole prosecutrix if
it is otherwise found trustworthy.

2. Glaring discrepancies - Failure of family members to report disappearance - Unexplained
delay in lodging FIR - Contradictions between FIR, testimony and General Diary entry - Effect:
Where the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is riddled with material discrepancies which are neither minor nor
insignificant, the court cannot sustain the conviction. In the present case, the prosecutrix allegedly remained
in confinement for approximately one and three-quarter months, yet neither her parents, her husband nor any
family member lodged any report of her disappearance, nor did any of them appear before the trial court to
corroborate even the initial part of the prosecution story. The FIR was recorded at 9:10 p.m. whereas the
prosecutrix claimed she reached the police station at 7:00 a.m., creating an unexplained delay of nearly
fourteen hours. The testimony of the Head Constable (PW-5) also contradicted the prosecutrix on the time of
her arrival at the police station. Furthermore, the story set out in the First Information Report and that
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

recorded in the General Diary Entry (Ex Ka-9) were diametrically at variance with each other - the General
Diary disclosed an additional accused (Chandrika Passi) and a larger number of persons involved, who had
never been named in the FIR or during trial. Held, that such material contradictions, taken collectively, render
the testimony of the prosecutrix unreliable.

3. Date of medical examination - Conflict between testimony of prosecutrix and prosecution
witnesses - FIR discrepancy as to date: The prosecutrix stated that her medical examination was
conducted on the same day as the lodging of the FIR (13.12.1980) and that her statement under Section 161,
Cr.P.C. was recorded the next day (14.12.1980). However, PW-3 (Constable Jashvir Singh) and PW-2 (Dr.
Nalini Gaur) both confirmed that the medical examination was performed on 14.12.1980, while the
Investigating Officer (PW-1) stated that the victim's statement was recorded on 15.12.1980 as investigation
was entrusted to him only on that day. These contradictions on material facts further corrode the credibility of
the prosecution case.

4. Change of version - Introduction of new allegation of rape against accused not named in FIR:
Where the First Information Report does not level any allegation of rape against a particular accused, and
neither the investigation nor the chargesheet attributes such an act to him, but the prosecutrix for the first
time during her deposition before the trial court implicates that accused by alleging rape, such a change of
version constitutes a material and significant discrepancy that substantially undermines the credibility of the
prosecutrix. In the present case, no allegation of rape was made against Appellant Pramod either in the FIR or
during investigation, and accordingly no charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against him; however, the
prosecutrix during her evidence alleged rape by all four accused persons including Pramod. This material
improvement of the case at trial is a factor that must be weighed against the prosecution.

5. Juvenility of accused - Duty of trial court to hold inquiry - Non-compliance: Where the age of
an accused at the time of the commission of the offence is brought into question during trial and there is a
reasonable likelihood that one or more of the accused may have been a minor (juvenile), it is incumbent upon
the trial court to conduct a proper inquiry into the age of such accused persons. In the present case, the trial
court, having itself taken note of the minority of Appellant Mithelesh Kumar and awarded him a lesser
sentence, was duty-bound to conduct a similar inquiry in respect of all appellants whose ages were disclosed
during recording of statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The failure to hold such an inquiry was an
irregularity.

6. Benefit of doubt - Acquittal - Prosecution failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt:
Where prosecution rests essentially upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, and that testimony is found to
be unreliable on account of multiple material discrepancies - including failure of family members to report
disappearance, contradictions between FIR, oral testimony and General Diary, unexplained delay in lodging of
FIR, conflict regarding date of medical examination, and wholesale improvement of the case during deposition
- the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court set
aside. Appeals allowed.

RESULT:
Both criminal appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the 7th Additional Sessions
Judge, Fatehpur vide judgment and order dated 07.07.1983 in Sessions Trial No. 513 of 1981 set
aside. Appellants directed to be set at liberty if in jail and not wanted in any other case. Bail
bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan, J.)
7 All. Pramod & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.
555
1. Four appellants have filed these two separate appeals against the judgment and order
dated 7.7.1983 passed by then 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 513 of
1981 (State versus Pramod and others) arising out of Case crime no. 250 of 1980, Police Station
Thariyaon. District Fatehpur.

2. Both appeals stem from a common judgment and common evidence, therefore, both the
appeals are being decided by a common judgment.

3. Appellant Pramod was convicted under section 366 Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC)
and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment (in short, R.I.). Appellants Suresh Kumar alias
Avadesh Kumar and Raghav alias Raghvendra Kumar were convicted under sections 376 IPC and
sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant Mithlesh Kumar was convicted under section 376 IPC
and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Raghav alias Raghvendra was also
convicted under section 366 IPC and sentenced to ten years R.I.

4. In view of Section 228-A of IPC, identity of victim of alleged rape is not being disclosed
and she will be referred as prosecutrix only.

5. Prosecution story, in brief, is that prosecutrix, a married woman was living at her
parental house with her parents in village Aurai, Police Station Thariyaon District Fatehpur at the
time of incident. Her husband Prithivi Pal wrote a letter to her father expressing his inability to
come to take his wife (prosecutrix). He asked that prosecutrix should be sent back to her
matrimonial home at village Chaumauli, Police Station Dibiyapur, the then District Etawah now
District Auraiya with some other arrangements. Appellant Pramod, a neighbour of prosecutrix's
parental home and known person offered to take her to her matrimonial home to which her parents
agreed.

6. Accused-appellant Pramod accompanied by prosecutrix left the village Aurai, Police
Station Thariiyaon district Fatehpur. He took her to Rasoolabad Railway Station where accusedappellant Raghav alias Raghvendra also met them. They boarded the train. At Fatehpur railway
station, Raghuvendra and Pramod disembarked from the train on the pretext of searching vacant
place in other compartment. Pramod went to search vacant seats in other compartment. Suddenly
train departed. Prosecutrix started crying but Raghav alias Raghvendra consoled her and promised
to leave her at parental home next day because no other train was available on that day. He took her
to a tubewell at 'Turab Ali Ka Purwa' belonging to one Muslim. A room (kothari) also existed on
the tubewell wherein co-accused Mithelesh and Suresh, cousins of Raghvendra were living with
their mother, who was also aunt (father's sister/Bua) of Raghvendra. Allegations are that both
appellants Mithelesh and Suresh alias Avadesh Kumar confined the prosecutrix in kothari for 1 3⁄4
month and they repeatedly raped her despite her protest. She claims to have complained to the
mother of Suresh alias Awadesh and Mithelesh but of no avail. It is further alleged that Raghvendra
also subjected her to rape on his frequent visits to this kothari. It is alleged that this single room had
a roof over which a tin shed stood pitched up as covering. Mithelesh and Suresh alias Awadesh
used to keep the victim there. It is further stated that on one day, she managed to flee from his room
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

on the pretext of need to defecate. She managed to reach Kotwali Fatehpur. She lodged First
Information Report (in short, FIR).She was sent to District Hospital for medical examination. A
site-plan was prepared at her instance and later on she went to her parental home as her husband
refused to keep her after this incident.

7. Sri Diwakar Singh (PW-2) was asked to conduct investigation. He conducted
investigation and subsequent to investigation filed charge-sheet under sections 363, 366, 368, 376
IPC. The charge-sheets are on record as Ex Ka-3, Ex Ka-4 and Ex Ka-5. The trial Judge framed
charges against Pramod Kumar under section 366 IPC, against Raghav alias Raghvendra under
section 366, 376 IPC, against Suresh Kumar and Mithelesh under sections 376 IPC on 6.11.1982.
Accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

8. Prosecution produced five witnesses, namely, PW-1 Diwakar Singh, PW-2 Dr. Nallini
Gaur, PW-3 Constable Jashvir Singh, PW-4 Prosecutrix and PW-5 Head Constable Rajendra
Bahadur Singh. Statements of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein
they denied all the allegations. They did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in defence.

9. The trial Judge concluded that there is sufficient evidence against all the appellants,
therefore, he convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid vide judgment and order dated
7.7.1983. This judgment is under challenge before this Court.

10. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla for appellants Mithelesh, Suresh Kumar alias Avadesh
Kumar and Raghav alias Raghvendra, Sri Shyam Sunder Misra for appellant Pramod and Sri Syed
Ali Murtuza, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that in the present case, there is no
corroboration of evidence of prosecutrix. Medical report does not inspire confidence. Testimony of
prosecutrix is full of discrepancies and contradictions. They have also argued that such evidence
should not be taken into consideration especially in the light of contradictions. They have further
argued that prosecutrix was not taken away from her parental home and that she left her place of
her own volition.

12. On the other hand, Sri Syed Ali Murtuza, learned AGA has submitted that testimony of
victim should be treated at part with injured witness and that no corroboration is required to support
the testimony of prosecutrix. He has further submitted that character of victim is certainly not in
trial in this case.

13. We believe that as far as law is concerned, the testimony of prosecutrix does not
require corroboration on material particulars. It is well settled legal position that sole testimony of
prosecutrix can be relied for conviction of the accused provided such testimony is cogent and
inspires confidence and accepted by court as such. We also believe that once testimony of
prosecutrix inspires confidence and is found credible and trustworthy, her sole testimony is
sufficient for passing conviction order against the accused. Only test is reliability and credibility of
7 All. Pramod & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.
557
witness. If sole testimony is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, then court can not acquit
the accused merely because other independent witnesses are not available. We also believe that
minor contradictions and insignificant discrepancies are not sufficient ground for rejecting the
testimony of sole prosecutrix if otherwise found trustworthy. We also believe that prosecutrix of a
rape case is not accomplice after the crime. Her testimony has to be appraised just as testimony of
any other witness. But we also believe that if court finds, it difficult to believe the story of
prosecutrix at its face value then it may seek direct or circumstantial evidence in support of her
allegations. In the present case, out of five prosecution witnesses, four witnesses are merely formal
witnesses. PW-5 Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur Singh recorded the FIR and entered it into
G.D. No. 46 at 9:10pm. He admitted that prosecutrix reached at the Police Station at 9:10pm. PW-2
Dr. Smt. Nalini Gaur merely examined the prosecutrix and prepared medical reports. PW-3
Constable Jashvir Singh adduced link evidence saying that he took prosecutrix to Female Hospital
for medical examination on 14.12.1980. PW-1 Sub Inspector Diwakar Singh conducted
investigation and submitted charge-sheet against accused persons. If we ignore these four
witnesses, then it will appear that prosecution has given only one witness, namely, prosecutrix
(PW-4). Therefore, Court has no option but to examine the sole testimony of prosecutrix with
critical care.

14. The prosecution story indicates that prosecutrix was wife of one Prithivi Pal. She had
been living at her matrimonial home substantially but at the time of incident, she was living with
her parents at Aurai, Police Station Thariyaon, District Fatehpur. It is alleged that husband could
not come to fetch her on account of lack of time, therefore, he requested the parents of prosecutrix
to make some other arrangement and then Pramod, accused-appellant entered into picture, who was
neighbour of prosecutrix. Admittedly, they knew each other reasonably well. Pramod offered to
accompany prosecutrix and parents agreed. Prosecutrix was abducted in between and kept at a
tubewell of one Muslim at 'Turab Ali Ka Purwa'. She managed to free herself from there after 1 -
3/4 months.

15. There are several unanswered questions in the story of prosecutrix. First, prosecutrix
lived for two months in single room. There was no toilet. In fact, during night, she was kept on roof
top covered with a tin shed. If her story is true, then she was raped repeatedly by two real brothers,
namely, Mithelesh and Suresh alias Awdesh. It is also stated that she was confined to this room
where she was kept under guard, not only by these two accused persons but also by their mother.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that it is rather inconceivable that a woman is being
kept for two months with other woman and yet second woman did not render any help. We believe
that this story may not be palatable to most people but such instances are not unknown, where
parents have completely lost control over their children. But in our opinion, there are several
uncomfortable and unanswered questions in the prosecution story.

16. The prosecutrix remained in kothari for almost two months with accused persons after
her abduction yet no report of her disappearance was lodged either by her parents or husband. This
is strange thing. Nobody questioned Pramod with whom prosecutrix had left for her matrimonial
home. No answer is forth coming from prosecution. Similarly not a single member of her family
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

has supported the prosecution allegation. Her parents have not appeared in witness box. Two elder
sisters of prosecutrix have not come forward to support the prosecution evidence. On the contrary,
elder sister of prosecutrix has married the main accused Raghav alias Raghvendra subsequent to
submission of charge-sheet. Prosecutrix (PW-4) has conceded this point in cross examination. She
has admitted that she was not kept by her husband subsequent to this incident and that she is living
with one Ram Krishana in matrimonial relationship though she has not been formally divorced by
her first husband.

17. Prosecutrix has also admitted that her elder sister Suman alias Rooprani has married
accused-appellant Raghav alias Raghvendra. She has conceded that she did have some differences
with her sister Suman though she has denied the allegation that she has falsely implicated Raghav
on account of jealousy with her sister Suman. The testimony of prosecutrix is full of significant
discrepancies. The FIR says that she was repeatedly raped by appellants Mithelesh, Suresh and
Raghav at the tube well at 'Turab Ali Purwa'. Initially no allegation was levelled against accused
Pramod for committing rape upon prosecutrix. In fact, contents of FIR says that Pramod and
Raghav Pandit disembarked from the bogey of train on the pretext of non-availability of space or
over crowding. When Pramod went to look for a vacant compartment, the train left the station.
Raghav Pandit allegedly lured and took her to tubewell at 'Turab Ali Ka Purwa' where she was kept
under surveillance of co-accused Mithelesh, Suresh alias Awadesh and their mother. There is no
allegation in the FIR that Pramod took her to 'Turab Ali Ka Purwa'. There is no allegation that he
visited her at 'Turab Ali Ka Purwa' even once. During investigation also she stated the same thing,
that is why trial Judge framed no charge under section 376 IPC against accused-appellant Pramod
but her testimony creates some complication. During her testimony prosecutrix stated that both
Pramod and Raghav Pandit took her to 'Turab Ali Ka Purwa' and confined her at tubewell there.
She again changed her version by levelling allegation that all the four accused persons repeatedly
raped her at tubewell. The role of Pramod is completely absent from FIR and original prosecution
story after his departure for purported search for vacant compartment in the train. But in her
evidence she levelled allegation of rape against all the four accused persons.

18. Subsequently, this witness also stated that one day she left her dwelling unit on pretext
of need to defecate. There is no specific statement that here was no toilet in the room but
examination of overall evidence would reveal that there was no separate toilet in that room. In fact,
it was a single room which was covered by tin shed, meaning thereby that inhabitants of room had
to go agricultural field every day for defecation. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that victim could have left earlier on the same pretext. She did not raise any alarm during her
confinement at tubewell. At one place prosecutrix has admitted and site plan also indicate that there
was a public path near the tubewell and one day infact, prosecutrix had some conversation with one
woman, wife of one Khatik. The question is how the prosecutrix, who was completely confined in a
room, became aware that particular woman is wife of khatik? Prosecutrix has also admitted that
room where she was confined was surrounded by agricultural field, orchard and one pond. She has
also admitted that this house belongs to a Muslim person. Learned counsel for the appellant has
raised a valid question and this is a very pertinent question that under what circumstances
prosecutrix did not get any opportunity for two months to contact any person or visit agricultural
7 All. Pramod & Ors. Vs State Of U.P.
559
field, orchard or pond or the owner of the tubewell. How come owner of the tubewell did not visit
her room even once for such a long time. All these questions are reasonable and can not be ignored.
Fact of the matter is that no explanation has been ever offered on behalf of prosecution.

19. Another significant discrepancy can be noticed in the testimony of prosecutrix. She has
said that she managed to leave the place of her confinement at 4:00am in the morning. She has
further stated that she reached Kotwali, at 7:00am. She has explained the delay of three hours by
saying that she had to inquire the location of Kotwali from several persons. Now Chik report (Ex
Ka-8) discloses that FIR was recorded on 13.12.1980 at 9:10pm(night). This entry and testimony of
prosecutrix are totally contradictory. Not only this, PW-5 Head Constable Rajendra Bahadur Singh
has also said that prosecutrix reached Police Station at 9:10pm (night). Prosecutrix says that she
reached there in the morning at 7:00am yet report was lodged in the night at 9:10pm. This
significant delay of almost 14 hours has not been explained by the prosecution. We may assume
that the delay was caused by police officials but the testimony of Head Constable Rajendra
Bahadur Singh (PW-5) contradicts the prosecutrix regarding time of her entrance in the Police
Station. This witness says that prosecutrix reached Police Station at 9:10pm(night) on 13.12.1980.
The question is why was this report lodged with this considerable delay ? If the prosecutrix had
reached Police Station at 7:00am, then there was no reason for them to record the FIR at 9:10pm in
the night. Prosecutrix has said that report was lodged on 13.12.1980, though at one place she even
referred date of report as 12.12.1980. But even if it is accepted that the report was lodged on
13.12.1980, that situation is also inconsistent with other documents available on record. Prosecutrix
has alleged that she was medically examined on the same day on which report had been lodged and
that her statement was recorded next day by the Investigating Officer, meaning thereby that
medical examination was conducted on 13.12.1980 i.e. date of report and her statement recorded on
14.12.1980 i.e. next day of FIR. This statement is not supported by record.

20. PW-3 Constable Jashvir Singh has claimed that he took prosecutrix to Female Hospital
on 14.12.1980. Dr. Nalini Gaur (PW-2) has also admitted that prosecutrix was examined on
14.12.1980 at 10:45am. This is contrary to the statement of prosecutrix. Similarly, even the date of
recording of statement of prosecutrix under section 161 Cr.P.C. is uncertain. The victim says that
her statement was recorded next day of lodging of FIR while Investigating Officer Diwakar Singh
says that statement of victim was recorded on 15.12.1980 as investigation itself was entrusted to
him on the same day. Therefore, he could not have recorded statement of the victim prior to the
entrustment of investigation. PW-1 Diwakar Singh has also disclosed that on 16.12.1980 the
statement of mother of victim was recorded yet her mother has not been produced in evidence.
Surprisingly, Investigating Officer did not record statement of victim's husband or any member of
his family during investigation despite the fact that prosecutrix had allegedly been abducted while
she was on way to her matrimonial home. Abduction took place at Railway Station and yet not a
single statement of any railway employee was recorded. Admittedly, Investigating Officer did not
even care to inquire whether prosecutrix was married or not ?
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court towards
admission of prosecutrix where says that she lived with Awadesh alias Suresh, Mithelesh and their
mother because she had been lured by them. The exact words used by her are as follows :

मैं अििेि ि वमर्लेि ि उनकी मािं के पा इ वलए रूकी क्ोिंवक मैं इन लोगोिं के चक्कर में आ गई र्ी।"

22. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the aforesaid sentence discloses that
the prosecutrix lived with aforesaid persons of her own volition on account of her unhappiness with
her parents and sister Suman and that is why no report of her disappearance was lodged by parents.
This suggestion of counsel for appellants can not ignored.

23. Oral testimony of prosecutrix is also inconsistent with site-plan (Ex Ka-1). Her
statement is contradictory to the documentary evidence available on record. She has tried to give
graphic description of place which does not find support from the evidence given by police.
Prosecution did not care to produce Muslim man in whose room the prosecutrix lived for two
months at 'Turab Ali Ka Purwa'. At one place prosecutrix admitted that no other person visited
tubewell behind 'Turab Ali ka Purwa' where she was living with Suresh and Awadhesh yet she
repeatedly said that she was raped by Raghav as well.

24. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court toward extract of
G.D.No. 46 recorded at 9:10pm on 13.12.1980 which has been proved by PW-5 H.C. Rajendra
Bahadur Singh (Ex Ka-9). He has submitted that contents of G.D. reflects a different story. Ex Ka9 discloses that during this period prosecutrix also lived with one Chandrika Passi who also
allegedly subjected her to rape. But during the course of trial, name of Chandrika Passi was never
mentioned. He was not even arrayed as an accused. The story surfaced from Ex Ka-9. First entry
made in this G.D. is completely at variance with the contents of FIR and testimony of prosecutrix.
The story of departure with Pramod with consents of parents is totally absent from this entry.
Present story accuses four persons while entry made in Ex Ka 9 talks about as many as six persons.
This document also talks of medical examination on the next day, contrary to assertion of
prosecutrix that medical examination was done on the same day on which FIR was lodged.

25. The record further discloses that at least one accused namely, Awadesh was 15 years of
age at the time of incident and therefore, the trial Judge sentenced him for 10 years R.I. only. In
fact, trial Judge should have conducted inquiry regarding the age of accused. Pramod disclosed his
age as 19 years, Raghav as 20 years, Mithelesh Kumar as 15 years and Awadesh as 18 years. These
were disclosed at the time of recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial judge
himself considered Mithelesh as minor, therefore, awarded him lesser sentence. Therefore, it was
incumbent upon the trial judge to hold the enquiry ascertaining the correct age of all
accused/appellants which he did not do. There was no attempt to take any further steps for
consideration of plea of juvenality of the appellants.

26. This entire case depends upon solitary testimony of prosecutrix. It is true that solitary
testimony of prosecutrix in a case of sexual assault can be the basis for conviction of accused,
7 All. Radhika Oiul Industries Vs Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow
561
provided found trustworthy. Facts of this case are rather strange. Of course, it is not necessary to
provide supportive evidence in every case of sexual assault but in the instant case, there are several
glaring discrepancies. A young married girl disappeared with a family friend for around two
months and yet no report of disappearance was lodged by parents. There is nothing on record to
even demonstrate that accused Pramod was ever questioned by the parents of the prosecutrix.
Surprisingly even the husband of prosecutrix at whose request she had been dispatched with
appellant Pramod did not inquire about her whereabouts. No report was lodged even by him. The
discrepancies regarding timing of report, medical examination and other relevant facts have not
been explained. Parents of prosecutrix at least could have supported the initial part of story of
prosecution yet parents and husband of prosecutrix neither reported the matter to the Police nor
appeared before the trial court to support her version. Even investigation has been performed in
perfunctory manner. The testimony of prosecutrix is not reliable at all. The story given by her and
story disclosed in G.D. No. 46 of 13.12.1980 Kotwali Fatehpur (Ex Ka-1) recorded at 9:10pm (Ex
Ka-9) are diametrically opposite to each other. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that
appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubts. Hence, the conviction recorded by the trial court against the appellants as well
as sentence awarded to them can not be sustained.

27. In the result, both appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 7.7.1983 passed
by then 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 513 of 1981 (State versus
Pramod and others) arising out of Case crime no. 250 of 1980, Police Station Thariyaon. District
Fatehpur is set aside. Appellants be set at liberty, if in jail and not wanted in any other case. Their
bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.

28. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to trial court for compliance through Sessions
Judge, Fatehpur within ten days. Concerned court shall report compliance within one month
thereafter.
----------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.- 1580 Of 2005

Radhika Oiul Industries ...Revisionist
Versus
Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Kunwar Saksena