# Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 19
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal U/S 413 BNSS No. 158 of 2026
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Jai Krishna Upadhyay
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54901
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

4 All. Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
19

10. The Nyayadhikari of the Gram Nyayalaya is directed to decide the pending Execution
Petition No. 25 of 2024 (Damini versus Pankaj Sharma), under Section 147 of the B.N.S.S., 2023,
in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months.

11. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present application under Section 529
of the B.N.S.S. is hereby disposed of.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 19
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

Criminal Appeal U/S 413 BNSS No. 158 of 2026

Ram Kumar ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Regarding inconsistent testimony of victim in acquittal order, qcquitting the accused u/s 376 (2) (n) IPC.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-376 (2) (n)- Trial Court acquitted the accused-impugned-Appeal- glaring
inconsistencies in the statements of Prosecution witnesses regarding date, time and manner in which the
incident happened- PW-1-victim-provided conflicting dates for the incident and gave contradictory statements
regarding her Medical Examination-statement u/s 164-that medical examination was never conducted- despite
records and her own examination-in-chief which had stated otherwise- allegation of repeated rape - no such
mention was made in the tehrir- PW2-father of the victim-contradicted the victim on almost every major
detail-impugned order does not warrant any interference-Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Internal examination; presumption of innocence; perversity; glaring inconsistencies.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant (s) : Counsel for Appellant(s) : Neelabh Srivastava, Vijai Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J.)

1. Heard Sri Neelabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the
State, and perused the record.
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 413 BNSS by the appellant against the
judgment and order dated 01.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Court No. 43, Shahjahanpur (J.O. Code U.P. 6453) in Special Session Trial No. 239
of 2021 (CNR NO. UPSH 010075392021) (State vs. Pappu) arising out of Case Crime No. 307 of
2021 under Sections 363, 376 (2) (n) IPC & 3/4 IPC & 3/4 the POCSO Act, Police Station -
Khudaganj, District - Shahjahanpur.

3. The prosecution story in a nutshell is as follows:-

(i) The applicant, Ram Kumar, S/o Rampal, R/o village Tadainiya, police station -
Khudaganj, district Shahjahanpur submitted written report/tahrir stating therein that Pappu, S/o
Ram Swarup of the same village, used to tease his daughter (victim) on the way coming and going.

(ii) On 26.09.2021 at about 12:00 noon, the accused grabbed the hands of the applicant's
daughter and attempted to drag her away. When she raised an alarm, he ran away. When she
informed the applicant about this incident, the applicant went to police station to lodge the First
Information Report and seek necessary action. His daughter is about 16 years old.

(iii) On the basis of above complaint of the informant, an FIR at police station -
Khudaganj, District - Shahjahanpur was lodged against Pappu bearing Case Crime No. 307 of 2021
under Section 354 IPC and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act.

(iv) During investigation, offence under Sections 363, 376 (2)(n) of IPC & 3/4 POCSO
Act were added against Pappu and Section 354 IPC and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act were deleted.

(v) After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused,
Pappu under Section 363, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and under Section 3/4 POCSO Act.

(vi) Thereafter charges were framed against accused, Pappu under Sections 363, 376(2)
(n) of IPC and Section POCSO Act. The above charges were read over and explained to the
accused. He denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined a total of 10 witnesses: P.W.-1
(Victim), P.W.-2 informant Ram Kumar, PW-3 Santram, PW-4 Nirmala Devi, PW-5, Incharge
Headmaster Vichitra Sharma, PW-6 Inspector Satish Kumar, PW-7 C.C. Ankur Chaudhary, PW-8
Ram Singh, PW-9 Dr. Shalini Singh and PW-10 M.P. Gangwar. The accused was examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. No evidence in defence was led by the accused.

5. PW-1 (Victim) stated that on the night of 25.09.2021, she had gone to the bathroom.
Suddenly, Pappu of the same village came and closed her mouth and intimidated her with a country
made pistol / tamancha. He took her to his house in a room and raped her 3-4 times. The police had
released her from the room in the morning. On 26.09.2021, at 12:00 noon, Pappu again entered her
house and started pulling her by the hand and attempted to takes her away. When she raised an
alarm, her father and brother arrived there. Even then Pappu forcibly dragged her to his house,
where he took off all her clothes and raped her three to four times. Pappu's wife had died many
4 All. Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
21
years ago. She told her parents about the incident. Her father Ramkumar submitted the written
report of the incident in the police station. The police had got a medical examination done. The
police had recorded her statement on the spot and the police had got her medical examination done
twice. The police had recorded her statement in the court. A sealed envelope was opened in the
Court, which contained her recorded statement u/s 164 C.r.P.C. marked as Ex-ka-1.

6. PW-2 Ramkumar, father of the victim, stated that this incident occurred about a year ago. It
was 12:00 noon. His daughter had gone to defecate in the toilet built outside the house. Just then,
Pappu- accused of his village, came and started molesting her. His daughter ran and entered the
house. On the same night, her daughter went outside again. Then again, Pappu, caught hold of her
hand, dragged her away, locked her in his room and did wrong things with my daughter three
times. His daughter raised an alarm, and Pappu left her and fled . His daughter informed him of the
entire incident, and he subsequently went to the police station to lodge a complaint in writing. The
police went to the spot at around 10:00 in the morning. The police found accused and his daughter
there. After lodging the report, he went to the police station twice. The police prepared the scene
map/ naksha nazri. The police inquired to his daughter and got her daughter medically examined.
Paper No. 3 Ka-3 was annexed in the file, which is Ex-Ka-2.

7. PW-3, Santram, son of Ram Kumar (PW-2) stated that he is uneducated and he is unable to
remember the date of incident. The incident is of about 2 years ago. His sister (the victim) whose
age which he is unable to recollect, had gone to defecate, when she was abducted by accused Pappu
of the same village and raped after being taken to his house. His father gave a written report to the
police only of molestation due to fear of being defamed by the villagers, but in actual the accused
had raped her sister. The next day, the police caught the accused, Pappu, with country made pistol
and his sister was medically examined and her statement was also recorded in the Court.

8. PW-4, Nirmala Devi, wife of Dabloo, R/o village Mahmadpur, police station Pihani,
District ? Hardoi, who is a house wife, stated that she is uneducated and the incident had happened
two and half years ago. The next day after the incident, she arrived at her parental house for a feast.
She reiterated the same thing as has been stated by PW-2.

9. PW-5, Vichitra Sharma, Incharge Headmaster, school of the same village stated that upon
being summoned by the Court, he appeared before the Court along with the record of date of birth
of the student/victim. He stated that her date of birth mentioned in the record is 12.05.2006. He has
produced the documents which are Ex-ka-3 and Ex-ka-4.

10. PW-6, Satish Kumar, Inspector who was posted as Sub Inspector at the police station
Khudaganj, District ? Shahjahanpur in the year 2021 stated that during his posting, case crime no.
307/2021, under Section 354 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act was registered on 26.09.2021 against
accused Pappu and the investigation of the case was entrusted to him. He has annexed several
papers during the investigation along wtih age certificate of the victim and recorded the statement
of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Her medical examination was also conducted. The
Statements of the accused, in charge Headmaster of the School and informant were also recorded.
Due to contradiction in the statements, a further statement of the victim was recorded and charge
were amended. Section 354 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act were deleted and charge was framed under
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 363, 376, (2)(n) of IPC and POCSO Act. The statement of Nirmala Devi (PW-4) and
Santram and Ram Singh (PW-8) were recorded and the spot was inspected. The statement of Dr.
Shalini Singh (PW-9) and lady constable Sapna were recorded and a case was registered against the
accused a charge sheet No. 326/21 was submitted which is Ex-Ka-5 and Naksa nazri and other
paper is Ex-Ka-6 and Ex-ka-7.

11. PW-7, Ankur Chaudhary, stated that he was posted at police station Khudaganj, District ?
Shahjahanpur on 26.09.2021 as C.C. He reiterated the same version as has been stated by the other
witnesses and has annexed copy of the FIR No. 307/2021 which is Ex-ka-8 and GD NO. 46 which
is Ex-ka-9.

12. PW-8, Ram Singh from the same village has stated that he is uneducated and the incident
is of about 4 years ago. The incident was happened in the night of 25/26.9.2021. He stated the same
thing as stated by PW-2 and PW-3.

13. PW-9, Dr. Shalin Singh, a doctor of a Jain Sons Hospital, Hardoi stated that on 27.02.2021
she was posted at Medical Officer as District Hospital.On the same day, the victim was brought to
hospital for medical check up at 11.10 am. She medically examined her externally and found no
injury on her body. The victim refused for internal examination. According to victim, while she
was taking bath in the bathroom, the accused arrived and on the point of country made pistol took
her to his house and pressed her breast. For age determination of the victim, an X-ray was
conducted and sent for report. Based on her findings, according to her (PW-9) she prepared a
supplementary report including medical report, which are Ex-ka-10 and Ex-ka-11. She opined that
the age of the victim is about 16 years. Again, victim was brought back to hospital for medical
check up on 08.10.2021 and was medically examined. No marks of external injury was found on
her body. The victim stated that while she was taking a bath in the bathroom, the accused Pappu,
arrived armed with pistol and took her to his house and did wrong activities with her. On her
internal examination, old hymen tear was found. Two sliders of the vaginal smear were prepared
for sperm analysis and sent to the pathology department. According to PW-9, she had prepared the
report and X-ray report which is Ex-ka-12 and again prepared medical report which is Ex-Ka-13.

14. PW-10, M.P. Gangwar, has stated that on 28.09.2021 he was posted as Professor at
ASME, Shahjahanpur. He stated that on that day, X-ray of the victim, daughter of Ram Kumar
(PW-2) was referred by EMO, CHC, Tilhar, were taken under his supervision. The epiphysis bones
of the wrist were found to be fused to the corresponding bones. The X-ray report and X-ray plate is
Ex-Ka-14.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions:

(a) The trial Court has illegally acquitted accused- Pappu of charges under Section 363,
376(2) (n) of IPC and under Section of POCSO Act.

(b) The trial Court without considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before
the trial court acquitted the accused ? Pappu.
4 All. Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
23

(c) The trial court has also not testified the truthfulness of averment made by the victim in
support of her claim, therefore, the impugned acquittal order dated 01.12.2025 is liable to be set
aside.

(d) The trial court has not considered the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C.
and also overlooked the medico legal examination report of the victim dated 27.09.2021 and
08.10.2021 respectively.

16. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State supporting the impugned judgment, has
submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The trial court has rightly
acquitted the accused. It was further submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, this appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

17. The appellate Court is usually reluctant to interfere with a judgment acquitting an accused.
The principle to be applicable is that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has not
to be lightly disturbed .The above principle has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court
while deciding appeals against acquittal by way of Article 136 of the Constitution or appeals filed
under Section 378 and 386 (a) Cr.P.C. This view was taken in the judgment of in State of M.P. Vs.
Sharad Goswami,(2021) 17 SCC 783; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602,
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra, (1973) 2 SCC 793.

18. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9
SCC 225 has observed that the High Court must examine the reasons given by the trial Court for
recording their acquittal before disturbing the same by re-appraising the evidence recorded by the
trial court. For clarity, para 7 is extracted herein below:

"Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the
High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the
question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of
acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the
entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that
the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at
by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground
to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of
the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it
were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellant Court is first
required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably
wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellant Court answers the
above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the
appellant Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be
sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and then only - reappraise the
evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping with the above principles we have therefore to
first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not."
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. Also the Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2016) 4 SCC
357 has observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different
pedestal from an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption
of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the
order of acquittal only when there is perversity.

20. Still further the Supreme Court in the case Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11
SCC 174 has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on
the prosecution. If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt
of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be
preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not
ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words,
the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in
law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found the accused to be "not guilty".
When circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive
for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case,
there is no direct evidence of the crime.

21. The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 has
observed as under:

"25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in
criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to
the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused
is sought is to established by circumstantial evidence."

22. The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors,
(2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the probability of two views in cases of appeal against acquittal
and held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the
guilt of the accused, and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted.

23. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 has reiterated
the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed to be
innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

24. In the background of the law discussed herein above and after looking closely at all the
evidence, we find that there are glaring inconsistencies in the statements of Prosecution witnesses
regarding date, time and manner in which the incident happened. PW-1 first of all provided
conflicting dates for the incident and secondly she gave contradictory statements regarding her
Medical Examination. She claimed in her statement under Section 164 that medical examination
was never conducted, despite records and her own examination-in-chief which had stated
otherwise. Furthermore, her allegation of repeated rape is severely weakened by the fact that no
4 All. Chhidu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
25
such mention was made in the tehrir despite her claiming she had informed her father of the same
before the report was filed.

25. The case is further weakened by the testimony of PW2, who contradicted the victim on
almost every major detail. While the victim said the incident happened at night and that they went
to the police station in a police car, PW2 claimed it happened in the middle of the day and that he
went to the police station by bicycle. Most importantly, PW2 claimed in court that he witnessed the
incident. However, the tehrir states that he was only told about it later by his daughter. It is to be
noted that applicant's family constitute 20-25 members, including children. In such a situation, the
allegation that the accused alone took her away from the house appears highly unnatural. Because
of these massive differences between what the witnesses said and what the documents revealed, the
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts.

26. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has
given logical and plausible findings in the impugned judgement in conformity with the evidence on
record and has rightly concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The judgment and order of the trial court is just and proper and carries no
perversity therein. Hence it does not warrant any interference by this Court. The reasoning adopted
by the learned Trial Judge is based upon proper application of judicial mind. No illegality, infirmity
or perversity is found in the impugned judgment and order and it needs no interference by this
Court.

27. Hence the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is
dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 25
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 1988

Chhidu & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of conviction order based on circumstantial evidence.

Headnotes
Circumstantial Evidence-- defence could not adduce any evidence-that there was any such enmity on
account of which, they could have been falsely implicated- enmity, on account of illicit relations between the
appellant No.3 (now dead) wife of appellant No.1 (now dead) with the deceased is apparent-which was the