# Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 503
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2010
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raje-rajesh-santosh-kumar-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-50233
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 342 &
506 - Challenge to-Conviction-Statement
of the victim (PW-1) corresponds with the
site plan as shown where the victim
allegedly raped at the tubewell of the
accused person in which the cot is
marked-delay is self-explanatory as the
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
victim got missing due to fear when her
brother searched her and apprised with
the incident the FIR was lodged-Although
witnesses named in FIR are not produced
in evidence due to fear as they were not
willing to speak the truth in the court yet
from the statement of PW-1 and PW-2,
this fact is proved that victim was rescued
by
two
witnesses-Even
in
crossexamination nothing emerged which could
make this fact suspicious that the victim
was not rescued by these witnesses-Even
where no external or internal marks of
injury on the private part of the victim of
rape was found in medical examination,
the testimony of the prosecutrix that she
was raped cannot be discarded-testimony
of prosecutrix stands at par with that of
an injured witness-an accused can be
convicted on the basis of sole testimony of
prosecutrix
without
any
further
corroboration provided the evidence of
the prosecutrix inspires confidence and
appears to be natural and truthful-Thus,
the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by learned trial court is affirmed.
(Para 1 to 26)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
503
special reasons have to rest on real special
circumstances.

34. In the instant case, alleged
incident took place about 40 years ago and
appellant is not a previous convict and that
accused-appellant alone cannot be held
responsible for long delay in disposal of
this appeal. It was stated for some days,
accused-appellant has remained in custody.
Considering all aspects of the matter, no
useful purpose would be served by sending
accused-appellant in to judicial custody to
suffer imprisonment of three months at this
stage, rather it appears that ends of justice
would met it the sentence of three months
imprisonment awarded by the trial court be
set
aside
and
accused-appellant
be
sentenced to the period already undergone
by him along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

35. Accordingly, conviction of
accused-appellant Ballu Mal is upheld, but
sentence of three months awarded by the
trial court is set aside and accusedappellant is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him along with fine of Rs.
5,000/- Accused-appellant is directed to
deposit fine of Rs. 5,000/- within forty five
days from today. In default of payment of
fine, accused-appellant shall undergo three
months imprisonment.

36. Resultantly, the instant appeal is
party allowed with following directions:-

(i) The judgment of conviction
dated 27.04.1985 is confirmed though the
sentence awarded of three months Rigorous
Imprisonment is modified to the period
already undergone by appellant.

(ii) The amount of fine of
Rs.2,000/- is increased to Rs.7,000/- which
shall be paid by appellant within six weeks
from the date of judgment. In default,
thereof, appellant has to undergo an
additional simple imprisonment of two
months.

(iii) A copy of judgment be sent
to
Court
concerned
for
necessary
information and compliance.

(iv)
Trial
court's
recod
be
remitted back forthwith.

37.
 The Court
appreciate
the
assistance rendered by Sri Radheyshyam
Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae. The State
Government is directed to pay Rs.5000/- as
remuneration to Sri Radheyshyam Yadav at
the earliest.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 503
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2010

Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar
 ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, Sri Sushil
Tiwari, Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 342 &
506 - Challenge to-Conviction-Statement
of the victim (PW-1) corresponds with the
site plan as shown where the victim
allegedly raped at the tubewell of the
accused person in which the cot is
marked-delay is self-explanatory as the
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
victim got missing due to fear when her
brother searched her and apprised with
the incident the FIR was lodged-Although
witnesses named in FIR are not produced
in evidence due to fear as they were not
willing to speak the truth in the court yet
from the statement of PW-1 and PW-2,
this fact is proved that victim was rescued
by
two
witnesses-Even
in
crossexamination nothing emerged which could
make this fact suspicious that the victim
was not rescued by these witnesses-Even
where no external or internal marks of
injury on the private part of the victim of
rape was found in medical examination,
the testimony of the prosecutrix that she
was raped cannot be discarded-testimony
of prosecutrix stands at par with that of
an injured witness-an accused can be
convicted on the basis of sole testimony of
prosecutrix
without
any
further
corroboration provided the evidence of
the prosecutrix inspires confidence and
appears to be natural and truthful-Thus,
the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by learned trial court is affirmed.
(Para 1 to 26)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Raja Vs St. of Karn. (2016) 10 SCC 506

2. St. of U.P. Vs Chhoteylal (2011) AIR SC 697

3. Moti Lal Vs State of M.P., 2009 (67) ACC 570
(SC), Wahid Khan Vs State of M.P., 2009 (7)
Supreme 584, Om Prakash Vs State of State of
U.P. 2006 (55) ACC 556 (SC).

4. St. of U.P. Vs Chhotey Lal (2011) AIR SC 697

5. Modan Gopal Kakkad Vs Naval Dubey (1992)
3 SCC 204

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shyam Sundar Mishra,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Ashish Mani Tripathi, learned A.G.A.
assisted by Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, State
Law Officer.

2. Instant Crl. Appeal has been
preferred by the accused appellant against
judgment and order dated 16.1.2010 passed
by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. By
the impugned judgment, learned trial court
has convicted the accused appellant for
charge under Section 376, 342 and 506 IPC
in S.T. No. 50 of 2002 (State of U.P. Vs.
Chunni Lal Sharma and another) and
sentenced him to ten years of rigorous
imprisonment for charge under Section 376
IPC and Rs. 5,000/- fine with default
stipulation,
six
months
rigorous
imprisonment for charge under Section 342
IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment
for charge under Section 506 IPC. All the
sentences
were
directed
to
run
concurrently.

3. Co-accused Chunni Lal died during
pendency of trial and trial against him
abated vide order dated 9.11.2004 by the
order of learned trial court.

4. Brief facts of the case relevant for
present appeal are that according to
prosecution version, informant Keshav Dutt
Tiwari R/o Village Fatehpur Tikari, lodged
an F.I.R. with P.S. concerned on 2.11.2001
at 6:30 pm, under Section 342, 376, 506
IPC at P.S. Khaga, District Fatehpur, with
averment that his minor sister aged about
15 years had gone to ease herself towards
agricultural field on 2.11.2001 at around
6:30 hours in the morning. After ease
herself when she was returning to home,
accused Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar
Shukla and Chunni Lal Sharma confronted
her and took her in the room lying in
nearby tubewell in the field and committed
bad act with her. On next day i.e.
5 All. Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
505
3.11.2001, his co-villagers Raghunandan
and Ashok Kumar heard cries of his sister
from the room of tubewell when they had
gone to ease themselves and they opened
the lock of the door and brought his sister
from the room and stated about this
incident to him. The accused had locked his
sister in the room in the evening and went
elsewhere. The investigating officer took
the lower garment (salwar) worn by the
victim on the date of incident in his
possession in presence of local witnesses
Rajjan Tiwari and Ram Saran which is
marked as Ext. Ka-5. The medico legal
examination of the victim was conducted
on 4.11.2001 at District women hospital,
Fatehpur by doctor Suriya Jabi, which is
marked as Ext. Ka-8. Dr. Suriya Jabi stated
that no injury was seen on any part of the
body of victim on the date of her
examination on 4.11.2001. In internal
examination, "vagina dilated and admits
two finger easily, hymen old torn with
healed edges, bleeding from O.S. present
(menstrual bleed). No injury is seen on and
around private parts. Vaginal smears taken
and sent for examination of alive or dead
human spermatozoa and referred to District
Hospital, Fatehpur, for X-ray wrist, elbow
and knee joint for age. In supplementary
report Ext. Ka-9 the doctor stated that
according
to
report
of
radiologist,
radiological age of the girl is about 18
years. No opinion about rape can be given.
There is no evidence of any living or dead
spermatozoa in the vaginal smear slikes.
The
investigating
officer
recorded
statement of informant and victim under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. who stated on
3.11.2001, on the date of lodging of F.I.R,
that the victim stated that in the morning of
2.11.2001 she had gone to ease herself
towards field lying in the west side of her
village and after easing herself when she
was returning to her home, accused Raje @
Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar Shukla met her
who was hiding in the neighboring Arhar
field of Jagdish and threatened her by
pointing a country-made pistol towards her
that if she cried, he would kill her and
dragged her towards field of Jwar and
Arhar and took her towards tubewell and
locked her in the room of tubewell from
inside and dashed her on a cot and
thereafter opened sting of her Salwar and
committed rape on her by hurling threat of
life to her. She lied on cot, thereafter his
companion Chunni Lal Sharma appeared in
the night and accused Raje @ Rajesh @
Santosh Kumar Shukla called him inside
the room who also committed bad act with
her against her will and both of them had
left her in the room by locking its door. In
the
morning,
she
was
rescued
by
Raghvendra and Ashok Kumar, her covillagers, in the morning when they heard
her cries. They opened the door and took
her out of the room and took her to her
home. Her lower garment (salwar) was got
stained with blood which was entrusted to
police. The investigating officer got the
statement of victim recorded before the
magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in
which she supported her version recorded
under
Section
161
Cr.P.C.
The
investigating officer after completing the
investigation,
submitted
charge
sheet
against accused persons Raje @ Rajesh @
Santosh Kumar Shukla and Chunni Lal and
for their prosecution, learned C.J.M. took
cognizance of the offence on charge sheet
filed by the investigating officer and
committed the case for trial to the court of
session on 18.1.2001.

5. Charge sheet was filed against
Rajesh @ Raje @ Santosh Kumar Shukla
in his abscondence subsequently accused
Rajesh @ Raje @ Santosh Kumar Shukla
appeared and he was sent to jail. The
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused Chunni Lal was enlarged on bail
by the order of Hon'ble Court and present
appellant faced trial as most of the time as
under trial prisoner. Charges were framed
against
accused
persons
by
learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4,
Fatehpur on 20.7.2002 under Section 342,
506 and 376 IPC against accused Rajesh @
Raje @ Santosh Kumar Shukla and Chunni
Lal Sharma. During prosecution evidence,
learned trial court recorded statements of
PW-1 Prosecutrix, PW-2 Keshav Dutt
Tiwari (informant), PW-3 S.I. Dinesh
Bajpayee, the then Head Mohrrir and
author of chick F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-2) and
extracts of G.D. No. 22, time 12:10 hours,
dated 3.11.2001 (Ext. Ka-3), PW-4 Subeer
Kumar, PW- 5, S.S.I. Madhusudan Singh,
investigating officer, who proved the
inventory of salwar worn by the victim at
the time of incident as Ext. Ka-5, site plan
of the place of incident as Ext. Ka-6,
charge sheet filed against accused persons
as Ext. Ka-7. He also produced Salwar of
the victim which was taken into possession
after the incident by producing before the
court as material Ext. 1. and its wrappers as
material Exts. 1, 2 and 3. PW-6 Dr. Suriya
proved medico examination report of the
victim as Ext. Ka-8 and supplementary
report as Ext. Ka-9, as the same being
prepared and signed by her. PW-7, K.P.
Singh, then Senior Radiologist, who proved
X-ray report of the victim as Ext. Ka-10
and X-ray plates as material Ext. 4.

6. Statement of accused was recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. after conclusion
of prosecution evidence in which he has
stated that case was filed against him due to
enmity, he only admitted the fact that coaccused Chunni Sharma died during
pendency of trial. He also stated that victim
and informant had given false evidence
against him and took the stand that
prosecutrix and co-accused Chunni Lal
Sharma were having intimate relationship
and victim had eloped with him. She was
caught near Khaga as Chunni Lal was
bataidar of his field. She had implicated
him also with Chunni Lal due to fear of
social ignominee. No defense has been
adduced by the accused.

7.

Learned
trial
court
after
appreciating the evidence on record and
hearing statements of learned counsel for
the parties observe that on the basis of
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, victim and
informant, this fact is proved perfectly that
on the date of incident accused Rajesh and
co-accused Chunni Lal dragged the victim
(PW-1) to the room of tubewell and
committed rape on her. He also considered
the statements of defense that independent
witnesses Raghunandan and Ashok Kumar,
who are said to have rescued the victim
from the room in which she was detained
by accused persons in the next morning of
the date of incident, were produced before
the court and observed that learned
A.D.G.C. (Criminal) had submitted that
these witnesses were not ready to appear
before the Court and tell the truth and for
that reason they were not produced before
the court. Learned court below also
observed
in
view
of
authoritative
pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court and
High Court, the corroboration of statement
of prosecutrix by independent witness is
not necessary in every case. It depends on
facts and circumstances of the case as to
whether corroboration is required or not.
The requirement of corroboration is not
rule of law but a rule of caution. He cited
certain judicial decisions in support of his
submissions. Learned court below further
observed that there is no occasion to look at
the evidence of victim of sexual offence
like rape with suspicion. Victim and his
5 All. Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
507
brother had no reason to falsely implicate
the accused persons for committing the
offence like rape. Learned trial court also
observed that no adverse inference can be
drawn against the version of the prosecutrix
only due to reason that no external or
internal injury was found on her person in
her medico legal examination report. She
was unmarried and it cannot be imagined
that victim and her brother would falsely
implicate the appellant and co-accused only
due to certain enmity by keeping their
honour and social respect on stake. The
victim has given reliable account of
sequence of events which cannot be burst
aside. This fact also gathers no mass that
the victim had chosen agricultural field
lying some what distant from her home
near Arhar field and her conduct cannot be
seen with doubt as she had chosen a field
near the tube-well of accused to ease
herself. He has also observed that in rural
area people shall choose distant agricultural
fields to ease themselves in morning hours.
Learned court below after giving thoughtful
considerations to submission of learned
counsel for the parties and evidence on
record, recorded verdict of guilt against
appellant and sentenced for charge under
Section 376, 342, 506 IPC and sentenced
him as aforesaid.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned
judgment and order, the accused appellant
has filed present criminal appeal under
Section
374
of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that learned court below has
convicted and sentenced the appellant
without considering the evidence adduced
during trial in proper perspective and in
meticulous manner. The appellant was
enlarged on bail by the orders of this Court
dated 17.7.2002, however, he became
absent and afterwards he was again sent to
jail by the orders of trial court on
27.7.2007. F.I.R. in present case was
lodged after two days of the incident and
there is no explanation of delay in lodging
the F.I.R. in prosecution version. Learned
Additional Session Judge ignored the
infirmities pointed out by accused side in
statement of prosecution witnesses. The
independent witnesses of prosecution who
are named in the F.I.R. were not produced
during trial which creates doubt regarding
authenticity of the F.I.R. version. The
prosecution version and statement of the
victim does not find corroboration from
medico legal examination report of the
prosecutrix. The doctor who conducted
medico
legal
examination
of
the
prosecutrix has categorically stated in her
report that victim was habitual for sexual
intercourse and no opinion can be given
regarding rape.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
submitted
that
prosecution
version
introduced in F.I.R. lodged at the instance
of brother of the victim (PW-1) is proved
by the evidence of witnesses of fact PW-1
(prosecutrix) and PW-2, informant, and
finds corroboration by the evidence of
formal witnesses. No adverse inference
should be drawn against statement of
prosecutrix who should be treated as
injured witnesses only due to fact that
witnesses named in F.I.R. Raghvendra and
Ashok Kumar could not be produced by
prosecution before the trial court and no
fault can be found on the part of the learned
trial court while convicting and sentenced
the accused-appellant. Appeal deserves
dismissal. During course of trial, report was
received from C.J.M. concerned dated
18.5.2022 wherein he stated that on
conducting the enquiry regarding live status
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the accused-appellant it is reported by
S.H.O. concerned that he is presently
residing at the place of hi in-laws in
Kanpur Nagar who drives e-rickshaw.

11. In letter dated 24.6.2022 learned
C.J.M., Fatehpur, informed this Court that
District Superintendent of Jail, Fatehpur
has informed that prisoner Raje @ Rajesh
@ Santosh Kumar Shukla, has been
released from jail on 5.10.2022 after
completing
his
punishment
of
imprisonment
as
well
as
after
the
depositing of amount of fine of Rs. 5,000/-
in the court and presently he is detained in
jail.

12. In present case accused was
charged for offence under Section 342, 506
and 376 IPC by learned Trial Judge, on
2.7.2002. In order to prove the charge
prosecution examined PW-1, prosecutrix,
and PW-2 (father of prosecutrix) Keshav
Dutt Tiwari as witnesses of act.

13. PW-1, prosecutrix, has stated in
her sworn testimony before the court that
she is acquainted with accused from before
the incident. Accused Chunni Lal Sharma
has died. The incident occurred seven year
two months ago from her evidence
(recorded on 16.1.2009). At around 6:30
hours in the morning she had gone to West
of her village to ease herself and when she
was coming towards home after ease
herself, accused Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh
Kumar Shukla who was hiding in Arhar
field of Jagadish, emerged from there and
brandished a country made pistol towards
her and threatened her to shoot her if she
cried and dragged her towards room of
tubewell and flinged her on cot and
forcefully
untied
her
lower
garment
(salwar) and committed rape on her. She
kept crying on the cot throughout the day
and accused was also present there and kept
on threatening her. In night he also called
co-accused Chunni Lal who also committed
rapeon her and thereafter both of them went
outside the room and locked it from
outside. She kept on crying and weeping
throughout in the night. In the morning, her
co-villager Raghunandan and Shiv and
Ashok Kumar came there and rescued her
by opening the door. She apprised her
brother and mother about the incident and
thereafter her brother took her to P.S. and
lodged report. The doctor conducted her
medico legal examination at Government
hospital, Fatehpur. Her lower garment worn
at the time of incident was taken at P.S.
which was blood stained. She was around
15 years of age at the time of incident. The
investigating
officer
recorded
her
statement. She knows meaning of rape
which implies insertion of male organ in
the place meant for urinating on person of
female.

14. In cross-examination, she stated
that she had told her age as 15 years to S.I.
as well as in the court. If the S.I. has not
stated her age as 15 years in her statement,
she cannot divulge its reason. Prior to this
incident, her private parts were not
interfered. No injury was caused therein.
She was virgin. The doctor had inspected
her private parts. The field in which she
had gone to ease herself is not connected
with pathway. The tubewell is lying 5-6
fields away from the pathway. That
tubewell is situated in the West side of her
village. Her home is towards North of
village. At that time, Arhar was sown in the
fields lying in North and East of her home.
Accused had dragged her. At the time of
incident, she suffered scratches on her
thighs in the process and her clothes were
also torn. She was wearing Salwar-Suit.
She had not taken any food in the day or
5 All. Raje @ Rajesh @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
509
night on that date. She had not taken even
water. The accused left the room of
tubewell on next morning at around 4:00
am and he did not come back. She was
acquainted with Chuni Lal prior to the
incident. Chunni Lal was residing in
tubewell of Rajesh. The villagers had
rescued her at 8 to 9: 00 hours from the
tubewell after hearing her cries. She denied
defense suggestion that prior to the incident
she eloped with accused Chunni Lal and
caught with him.

15. PW-2, Keshav Dutt Tiwari, who
is brother of the victim, has supported the
F.I.R. version and proved the written report
Ext. Ka-1 filed by him at P.S. which found
basis of F.I.R.. He also stated that
investigating officer has recorded his
statement.

16. In cross-examination he clarified
that he has not seen the incident. He has
also not seen Raghvendra and Ashok
Kumar rescuing the victim from tubewell.
He has lodged the F.I.R. on being apprised
about the incident by these witnesses. The
witnesses had brought her sister in the
morning at around 9/10:00 hours. He had
searched his sister after she went missing
but he did not search her towards the
tubewell. Accused Rajesh was married and
having children prior to the incident. He
refused defense suggestion that prior to the
incident his sister eloped with son of Shanti
Singh, his co-villager.

17. PW-3, S.I., Dinesh Bajpayee, has
proved Ext. Ka-3, extracts of G.D. of
registration of case Report No. 22, time
12:10 hours, dated 3.11.2001 and chick
F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-4.

18. PW-4, Subeer Kumar, has
testified that he has examined vaginal
smeer slikes of victim on 5.11.2001
wherein no live or dead spermatozoa was
detected. He proved this report as Ext. Ka-4

19. PW-5, Madhusoodan Singh, the
then S.S.I., has proved the inventory of
taking in possession the Salwar of the
victim as Ext. Ka-5. Site plan of the place
of incident as Ext. Ka-6, charge sheet as
Ext. Ka-7 and also produced Salwar of the
victim before the court on which ME-1,
ME-2 and ME-3 were marked.

20. PW-6, Dr. Suriya, proved medico
legal
examination
report
and
supplementary report of the victim as Ext.
Ka-8 and Ka-9 and stated that no external
or internal injury was found on person of
the victim. Her age was around 18 years.
No opinion regarding rape could be given.

21. PW-7, Dr. K.P. Singh, proved Xray report of victim regarding fusion of her
bones for determining her age and stated
that according to X-ray, she was around 18
years of age. He also proved X-ray plates
as ME-4.

22. The accused did not adduce any
defense evidence. His stand is that of
denial. He stated that in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. the informant and
prosecutrix has given false statement
against hi. There was love affair between
prosecutrix and co-accused Chunni Lal and
she had eloped with him and was recovered
farther to Khaga. Chunni Lal was his
bataidar.

23. The place of occurrence as stated
in statement of PW-1, victim, corresponds
with site plan (Ext. Ka-6) prepared by the
investing officer in which place of
occurrence is shown as room at the
tubewell in which the cot is marked where
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the victim was allegedly raped by accused
persons. F.I.R. in present case was lodged
on 3.11.2021 at 12:10 hours by Keshav
Dutt, brother of the victim, which is found
on record as Ext. Ka-2. The delay in
lodging the F.I.R. is self explanatory in the
F.I.R. itself, therein it is stated that victim
got missing on 2.11.2001 and the informant
(her brother) was searching for her and on
next date, she was rescued by witnesses
from the room of tubewell which belonged
to accused appellant and thereafter he was
apprised of the facts and he lodged the
F.I.R. at P.S. concerned by filing written
report. The distance between P.S. and the
place of incident is 6 km, therefore, in my
considered opinion there is no delay in
lodging of F.I.R. that too in a case like
rape. Although witnesses named in F.I.R.
are not produced in evidence due to fact
that according to prosecution they were not
willing to speak the truth in the court yet
from statement of PW-1 and PW-2, this
fact is proved that victim was rescued by
Raghvendra and Ashok Kumar. They were
not produced by defense to rebut this
version of prosecutrix and informant. Even
in cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2,
nothing emerged which could make this
fact suspicious that victim was not rescued
by these witnesses. There is nothing to
disbelieve the sequence of events stated by
PW-1 and PW-2.

24. In catena of decisions like Raja
Vs. State of Karnataka, (2016) 10 SCC
506, State of U.P. Vs. Chhoteylal, AIR
2011 SC 697, Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P.,
2009 (67) ACC 570 (SC), Wahid Khan Vs.
State of M.P., 2009 (7) Supreme 584, Om
Prakash Vs. State of State of U.P., 2006
(55) ACC 556 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court
held that in a case of rape, testimony of
prosecutrix stands at par with that of an
injured witness. It is really not necessary to
insist for corroboration if the evidence of
prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears
to be credible. An accused can be convicted
on the basis of sole testimony of
prosecutrix
without
any
further
corroboration provided the evidence of the
prosecutrix
inspires
confidence
and
appearsto be natural and truthful. Women
or girl raped is not accomplice and to insist
for corroboration of the testimony amounts
to insult to womenhood. The evidence of a
victim of sex-offence is entitled to great
weight,
absence
of
corroboration
notwithstanding, therefore, there is no force
in the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant that sole testimony of prosecutrix
is not corroborated by any other evidence.

25. In so far as defence argument is
concerned, this defence argument that no
injury was found by the doctor on the
person of the victim is concerned Hon'ble
Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Chhotey
Lal, AIR 2011 SC 697 and Madan Gopal
Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC
204 and other cases, clarified that even
where no external or internal marks of
injury on the private part of the victim of
rape was found in medical examination, the
testimony of the prosecutrix that she was
raped by the accused cannot be discarded,
therefore
in
the
light
of
foregoing
discussions and authorities cited above, this
Court is of considered opinion that learned
trial court has convicted no misappreciation
of evidence on record as alleged in present
appeal nor there is any legal error in
application of law and no factual or legal
error is found on the part of the learned trial
court while recording conviction of the
appellant and or awarding sentence against
him as aforesaid.

26. Appeal is devoid of merit and is
liable to be dismissed. Appeal stands
5 All. Amar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
511
dismissed with above observations. The
judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by learned trial court is affirmed. As
the fact has already brought on record that
appellant has completed full sentence
awarded in impugned judgment, he need
not surrender to suffer the sentence
anymore.

27. Let a copy of this judgment along
with lower court record be sent to court
concerned for necessary information and
compliance.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 511
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, C.J.
THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1752 of 2012

Amar Singh & Anr. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Sri Anjani Kumar
Dubey, Sri S.S. Yadav, Sri Vijay Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri
Amit
Sinha,
A.G.A.,
Ms.
Mayuri
Mehrotra, State Counsel, Sri Ram Nath, Sri
S.K. Tripathi

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860-Sections 302, 307, 394, 323Challenge to-Conviction-Variations found
in statements of eye-witnesses-FIR was
lodged
promptly-However,
witnesses
were examined after lapse of time but if
the
eye-witnesses
are
cogent
and
trustworthy and prevails over medical
evidence in all aspects where autopsy
report is found in conflict with that of
ocular evidence-Conviction and sentence
upheld.(Para 1 to 74)

B. So far as charge under Section 307 IPC
is concerned, the settled law is that it is
not necessary that injury, capable of
causing death, should have been inflicted.
What is material to attract the provisions
of Section 307 of IPC is the intention or
knowledge with which the all was done,
irrespective of its result. The intention and
knowledge are the matters of inference
from totality of circumstances and cannot
be measured merely from the results. In
fact the important thing to bear in mind
for
determining
the
question
as
to
whether the offence under Section 307
IPC is made out, is the intention and not
the injury, even if it may be simple or
minor. Question of intention to kill or
knowledge of death is always a question
of fact and not of law. the intention or
knowledge of the accused must be such as
is necessary to constitute murder. Section
307 IPC does not require that injury
should be on vital part of the body. Merely
causing hurt with intention or knowledge
of causing death is sufficient to attract
Section 307 IPC.(Para 71)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Chacko Vs St. of Ker. (2004) 12 SCC 269

2. Raj Narain Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2010) AIR
SCW 521

3. Dharnidhar Vs St. of U.P. (2010) 6 SCJ 662

4. Ramesh Vs St. of U.P. (2009) 15 SCC 513

5. Ravi Kumar Vs St. of Punj. (2005) 9 SCC 315

6. Premsagar Manocha Vs St. (NCT Delhi)
(2016) 4 SCC 571

7. St. of A.P. Vs S. Rayappa & ors. (2006) 4 SCC 512

8. Bikau Pandey Vs St. of Bih. (2003) 12 SCC
616