# Sanjeev @ Sanju v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1148
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-03
- **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Laxmi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjeev-sanju-v-state-of-u-p-44150
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

G.A.

Held -

Paragraph 1: Appeal and Conviction Details
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment dated December 24, 2015, passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge/F.T.C., Baghpat, in S.T. No. 443 of 2012. The trial court convicted the appellant, Sanjeev @ Sanju,
under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly raping and threatening the
prosecutrix. He was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and one year
under Section 506 IPC, to run concurrently.

Paragraph 2-3: The Prosecution's Case
The prosecution alleged that in late June 2012, while the prosecutrix's husband was away in Gauhati for a
family ritual, the appellant (the husband's nephew) called her to his house at 6:00 AM under the pretext of
milking his cow. Once there, he allegedly forced her into his bedroom and raped her. The trial court found this
account reliable and convicted the appellant.

Paragraph 4: Grounds of Appeal
The appellant challenged the conviction on multiple grounds: the absolute lack of external/internal bodily
injuries or chemical evidence of spermatozoa; material contradictions in the sole testimony of the prosecutrix;
and the complete disregard of defense evidence showing a financial dispute where the prosecutrix falsely
implicated the appellant to evade a loan repayment.

Paragraph 5-6: Arguments and Witness Layout
The State (A.G.A.) supported the conviction, arguing that a rape conviction can stand solely on the
uncorroborated testimony of the victim. Upon reviewing the record, the High Court noted the prosecution
examined six witnesses (only the prosecutrix being a witness of fact), while the defense produced two
witnesses, including the victim's own husband (DW-2).

Paragraph 7: Testimony of the Prosecutrix (PW-1)
8 All. Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs State Of U.P.
1149
In her examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix repeated the FIR narrative, adding that the appellant forcibly
pulled her into the room, pinned her down, threatened her life, and raped her. She further admitted that after
the act, she accepted Rs. 1,000 from the appellant, visited her uncle Mahipal's house for five minutes, and
then went alone to the police station.

Paragraph 8-9: Contradictions Exposed in Cross-Examination
During cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted she did not preserve her crime-scene clothes or record a
Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement before a Magistrate. Severe contradictions emerged regarding whether she
raised an alarm inside or outside the room. Furthermore, while she claimed her bangles broke and the
appellant tried to strangulate her with a rope, the medical officer found absolutely no injuries on her wrist,
neck, or body. She also admitted her husband had previously required expensive medical treatment following
an accident.

Paragraph 10: High Court's Initial Assessment of the Victim's Credibility
The High Court observed that while a rape conviction can rest on a victim's sole testimony, it must be of
"sterling quality." The prosecutrix's narrative failed this test. Her admissions suggested either a consensual
relationship in the absence of their families, or a malicious fabrication to escape a heavy financial debt, a
doubt compounded by the lack of physical injuries and the non-examination of her uncle Mahipal or the report
scribe.

Paragraph 11-13: Analysis of Defense Evidence (DW-1 & DW-2)
The Investigating Officer (PW-6) confirmed he found no broken bangles at the scene. Defense witness
Yashpal Singh (DW-1) testified to a running community knowledge of a severe debt dispute between the
families and heard no alarms. Crucially, the victim's husband, Baburam (DW-2), testified that his right hand
was amputated in an accident, forcing him to borrow Rs. 60,000 from the appellant. He stated that his
illiterate wife was instigated by locals to file a false FIR to escape the debt, and later lied in court out of fear of
being jailed for perjury.

Paragraph 14-16

## Text

1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 1148
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAXMI, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 1873 Of 2016

Sanjeev @ Sanju ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsels for the Appellant:
Shri Jitendra Rana

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Held -

Paragraph 1: Appeal and Conviction Details
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment dated December 24, 2015, passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge/F.T.C., Baghpat, in S.T. No. 443 of 2012. The trial court convicted the appellant, Sanjeev @ Sanju,
under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly raping and threatening the
prosecutrix. He was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and one year
under Section 506 IPC, to run concurrently.

Paragraph 2-3: The Prosecution's Case
The prosecution alleged that in late June 2012, while the prosecutrix's husband was away in Gauhati for a
family ritual, the appellant (the husband's nephew) called her to his house at 6:00 AM under the pretext of
milking his cow. Once there, he allegedly forced her into his bedroom and raped her. The trial court found this
account reliable and convicted the appellant.

Paragraph 4: Grounds of Appeal
The appellant challenged the conviction on multiple grounds: the absolute lack of external/internal bodily
injuries or chemical evidence of spermatozoa; material contradictions in the sole testimony of the prosecutrix;
and the complete disregard of defense evidence showing a financial dispute where the prosecutrix falsely
implicated the appellant to evade a loan repayment.

Paragraph 5-6: Arguments and Witness Layout
The State (A.G.A.) supported the conviction, arguing that a rape conviction can stand solely on the
uncorroborated testimony of the victim. Upon reviewing the record, the High Court noted the prosecution
examined six witnesses (only the prosecutrix being a witness of fact), while the defense produced two
witnesses, including the victim's own husband (DW-2).

Paragraph 7: Testimony of the Prosecutrix (PW-1)
8 All. Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs State Of U.P.
1149
In her examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix repeated the FIR narrative, adding that the appellant forcibly
pulled her into the room, pinned her down, threatened her life, and raped her. She further admitted that after
the act, she accepted Rs. 1,000 from the appellant, visited her uncle Mahipal's house for five minutes, and
then went alone to the police station.

Paragraph 8-9: Contradictions Exposed in Cross-Examination
During cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted she did not preserve her crime-scene clothes or record a
Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement before a Magistrate. Severe contradictions emerged regarding whether she
raised an alarm inside or outside the room. Furthermore, while she claimed her bangles broke and the
appellant tried to strangulate her with a rope, the medical officer found absolutely no injuries on her wrist,
neck, or body. She also admitted her husband had previously required expensive medical treatment following
an accident.

Paragraph 10: High Court's Initial Assessment of the Victim's Credibility
The High Court observed that while a rape conviction can rest on a victim's sole testimony, it must be of
"sterling quality." The prosecutrix's narrative failed this test. Her admissions suggested either a consensual
relationship in the absence of their families, or a malicious fabrication to escape a heavy financial debt, a
doubt compounded by the lack of physical injuries and the non-examination of her uncle Mahipal or the report
scribe.

Paragraph 11-13: Analysis of Defense Evidence (DW-1 & DW-2)
The Investigating Officer (PW-6) confirmed he found no broken bangles at the scene. Defense witness
Yashpal Singh (DW-1) testified to a running community knowledge of a severe debt dispute between the
families and heard no alarms. Crucially, the victim's husband, Baburam (DW-2), testified that his right hand
was amputated in an accident, forcing him to borrow Rs. 60,000 from the appellant. He stated that his
illiterate wife was instigated by locals to file a false FIR to escape the debt, and later lied in court out of fear of
being jailed for perjury.

Paragraph 14-16: Rejection of the Trial Court's Findings
The trial court had brushed aside the defense and the lack of physical injuries by pointing out that the FIR was
lodged promptly and that minor injuries could fade within the seven-hour gap before the medical exam. The
High Court rejected this, noting that the trial court completely ignored blatant structural contradictions,
embellishments, and improvements in the victim's statements.

Paragraph 17-19: Application of Supreme Court Precedents
Citing apex court rulings, the High Court reiterated that a "sterling witness" must be of exceptionally high
calibre, natural, and entirely consistent from the first statement to the trial testimony. Testing the facts
against this threshold, the Court ruled it completely unjustifiable to convict the appellant based on a solitary
testimony riddled with omissions and contradictions.

Paragraph 20-22: Final Order and Acquittal
The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant of all charges, allowing the
appeal. The Court lamented that the appellant had already languished in jail for over four years without fault
due to repeated bail rejections, and ordered his immediate and forthwith release from custody.

List of Citations:-
1.Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130
2.Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.)
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2015
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C., Baghpat, in S.T. No. 443 of 2012, State Vs.
Sanjeev @ Sanju, u/s 376, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Baroth, District Baghpat, arising out of Case Crime No.
513 of 2012, whereby the learned trial court has convicted the appellant under section 376 I.P.C.
and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in
default of payment of such fine, to undergo six months additional imprisonment. By the impugned
order the appellant has also been convicted under section 506 I.P.C. for which he has been awarded
R.I. for one year. Both the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA. Perused the record.

3. As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the applicant alleging
that when her husband Baburam had gone to Gauhati to attend the Terahvi (a ritual performed on
13th day from the death of a person) of her Jeth, the accused-appellant, who is the nephew of her
husband (Bhanja) and is a resident of the same locality called her at 6.00 A.M. in the morning for
milking his cow. It is alleged that when she went to his house for milking his cow, the appellant
took her inside his bedroom and committed rape on her. The learned trial judge found the
prosecution case reliable and convicted the appellant as aforesaid.

4. The aggrieved appellant, in this appeal, has questioned the legality and correctness of the
impugned judgment and order mainly on the following grounds:

1. That the aforesaid prosecution story is totally false and concocted, which is
evident from the fact that no injury was found either on external or internal part of the body of the
prosecutrix and no spermatozoa was found after chemical examination, which totally belies the
prosecution story.

2. There are several contradictions, infirmities and omissions in the testimony of
the prosecutrix, who is the solitary witness of fact, produced by the prosecution in this case. But the
learned trial court without taking into consideration the material contradictions occurred in her
statement and ignoring the medical report, has passed the impugned judgment on the basis of mere
conjectures and surmises.

3. The husband of the prosecutrix, Baburam, has been produced by the defence as
DW2, who has categorically stated that the appellant had lent him money for meeting out his
medical expenses, as he had met with an accident and had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 60-70
thousand on his surgery. The appellant was demanding his money back, which he, (Baburam), was
unable to pay, hence his wife, the prosecutrix, on the instigation of other people, lodged the FIR. It
was only due to the fear of her own conviction for giving false evidence, she did not retract from
her statement during the trial. However, the learned trial judge neither considered the explanation
put forth by the appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C. nor the aforesaid evidence of DW1, while convicting the
appellant.
8 All. Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs State Of U.P.
1151
5. Per contra learned AGA has supported the impugned judgment by contending that the
learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant because in case of rape the sole testimony of
the prosecutrix can form the basis of conviction and there is no need for any further corroboration.

6. Considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the original record.

7. The prosecution in this case has produced only six witnesses out of which only PW1, the
prosecutrix herself, is the witness of fact. The remaining five witnesses are formal witnesses, PW2
is the doctor and PW3 to PW6 are police personnel including the I.O.

8. The defence has also produced two witnesses. DW1 is Yashpal Singh and DW2 is
Baburam, who is the husband of the prosecutrix.

9. The prosecutrix during her examination in chief has repeated the FIR version by stating
that in June 2012 her Jeth, who was living in Gauhati, had expired. On the date of occurrence her
husband had gone to attend the Terahvi of her Jeth. The accused-appellant is her nephew, whose
family members had also gone to Gauhati to attend Terahvi ceremony. The occurrence is of the last
week of June. In the early morning at about 6 or 6.30 A.M. the appellant called her to milk the cow.
She went and milked the cattle. When she was about to return to her home the appellant came and
asked her to come inside the house as he had to talk to her on some important issue. When she
denied he forcibly took her inside the room holding her hand. Thereafter he pressed her mouth from
his hand, put his leg on her breast and pressed her neck. He also and threatened her to kill.
Thereafter he committed rape with her. She has further stated that after committing rape, the
appellant gave her Rs. One thousand, which she accepted. From the house of the appellant she went
to her uncle Mahipal's house and informed about the whole episode. At Mahipal's house she stayed
for five minutes and from there she went to police station to lodge the FIR.

10. During her cross-examination the prosecutrix has stated that she had gone to the police
station all alone. She has also stated that when she had gone to lodge the report, she did not take
with her, her clothes, which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. When asked as to why she
did not raise any alarm, she stated that she had raised alarm from inside the room. However, when
she was confronted with her earlier statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that
she had raised alarm after coming outside the room and hearing her alarm several persons had
gathered at the spot, she replied that she had not given any such statement to the I.O. and she cannot
assign any reason as to how it was written. She has admitted that she accepted Rs. One thousand,
which the appellant gave to her, after committing the rape and those are still lying with her and she
did not give those rupees to the I.O. She has also admitted that she did not get her statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C. recorded before the Magistrate. She has stated that her bangles were broken causing injuries
on her wrist. She has also stated that the appellant tried to strangulate her by rope causing marks on
her neck but the doctor has not found any such injury either on her wrist or neck or even any part of
her body. She has admitted the fact that her husband had met with an accident in which his hand
had to be amputated and he had to remain admitted in hospital for one month incurring Rs. 60-70
thousand in his treatment.
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. There is no doubt that in the cases of rape sole testimony of the victim of rape is
sufficient to convict the accused but as per settled legal position the said sole testimony should be
trustworthy, reliable and must be of sterling quality. In so far as the case in hand is concerned, the
statement of the prosecutrix as discussed in the preceeding paragraph, does not appear to be of such
sterling quality. Her admissions clearly suggest that either she was a consenting party, who out of
her own freewill and in the absence of her husband and the other family members and also in
absence of family members of the appellant, had made physical relations with him voluntarily or as
per the defence version, she has falsely implicated the appellant so as to avoid the payment of loan
to him. The absence of any mark of injury on her external or internal part of the body totally belies
the prosecution story. It also appears unbelievable that her uncle Mahipal, to whom she had
immediately informed about her rape and from whose house she had gone directly to police station
to lodge the FIR, did not accompany her to the police station. The aforesaid Mahipal, could have
been the best witness in this case, but the prosecution, for reasons best known to it, has not
examined Mahipal as a witness in this case. One more fact, which raises a serious doubt in the
prosecution story is that the prosecutrix has stated that when she had gone to lodge the report she
did not take the clothes with her, which she was wearing at the time of occurrence, whereas, as per
her own narration, after returning from the house of the appellant, she directly went to the house of
Mahipal where she stayed for five minutes and then she went to the police station to lodge the FIR.
Thus, it is not clear as to when and where she changed her clothes. She has stated that she got the
written report scribed by a tea vendor but the said tea vendor has also not been examined by the
prosecution.

12. The story of rape as narrated by the prosecutrix becomes unreliable also, in view of the
statement of investigating officer (PW-6 Kunwar Pal Singh), who has stated that he had inspected
the spot and he did not find any broken bangle at the place of occurrence. He has also stated that the
prosecutrix had never informed him about any such fact that the appellant kept his legs at her breast
and pressed her mouth with his hands.

13. The defence has produced one Yashpal Singh as DW1, who is the neighbour of both i.e.
the prosecutrix and the accused-appellant being a resident of the same Awas Vikas Colony, who
has stated that the husband of the prosecutrix had to incur heavy expenditure on his medical
treatment after his accident and the appellant had lent him a handsome amount for his treatment but
Baburam (the husband of prosecutrix) was not returning this loan despite the repeated demands
made by the appellant. DW1 has further stated that on 29.6.2012 between 5 to 7 A.M. he was on
routine morning walk in the park situated at the front of his house but he did not see the prosecutrix
going towards the house of the appellant. He has also stated that the appellant used to milk the
cattle and to give them the fodder himself. DW1 has further stated that he did not hear any alarm of
the prosecutrix. He has also stated that the entire colony knows that due to dispute of payment of
loan, the prosecutrix has lodged the false FIR against the appellant.

14. The husband of the prosecutrix Baburam has been produced as DW2. He has stated that
due to truck accident his right hand had to be amputated and he had to take loan of Rs. 60,000/-
from the appellant. When he returned home from the hospital, the appellant started to demand back
8 All. Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs State Of U.P.
1153
his money. As his right hand had been amputated, he was unable to earn so he could not return the
loan. In June 2012, when he had gone to Gauhati, some people instigated his wife to lodge the FIR
against the appellant, who was continuously demanding his money back. DW2 has stated that his
wife is an illiterate lady, who, under the influence and instigation of some people of the locality, put
her thumb impression on the FIR. Later on, when Sanjeev (appellant) was lodged in jail, the
persons, who had instigated his wife, told her that if she would not support the story, mentioned in
the FIR, in the court, she would also be lodged in jail. Hence out of fear, his wife has deposed in the
court against the appellant. The appellant is his real nephew and is married too.

15. The learned trial court disbelieved the defence witnesses and relied on the statement of
the prsecutrix mainly on the ground that as the FIR has been lodged promptly by the prosecutrix,
there was no time for her to concoct a false story. The learned trial court did not find any good
ground to disbelieve the prosecution case on the basis of the fact that Mahipal, uncle of the
prosecutrix, was not produced.

16. With regard to absence of injuries on the body of the prosecutrix, the learned trial court
expressed its view that the incident has taken place at 6.00 A.M. and the medical examination has
been conducted on the same day at 1.45 P.M., hence during this time gap the marks of injuries may
fade and vanish.

17. No opinion has been expressed by the learned trial court with regard to the
contradictions and improvements in the statement of the prosecutrix.

18. There is no doubt that the cases of rape should be dealt by the courts with an iron hand
and the conviction of an accused of rape can be based even on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix
but the condition is that the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy,
unblemished and should be of sterling quality. In so far as the present case is concerned,
undoubtedly the solitary evidence of prosecutrix does not fall in that category and it is neither safe
nor proper to hold the appellant guilty of rape only on the basis of her sole testimony.

19. In the case of Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State Haryana, (2011)7 SCC 130 the Apex
court under almost same facts has set aside the conviction and has acquitted the accused.
Explaining/ elaborating the meaning of 'sterling witness', Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai
Sandeep Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 has observed as under:-

"In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality
and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of
such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the
quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant
is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be
the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when
the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

consistent with the case of prosecution qua the accused. There should be not be any prevarication
in the version of such a witness."

20. Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of law as laid down by the Apex
Court in the judgments cited above, this court is of the considered view that it was not justifiable
for the learned trial court to convict the appellant on solitary statement of prosecutrix, which being
full of contradictions, omissions, embellishments and improvements, canot be termed as that of
sterling quality.

21. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside and the
appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

22. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of
conviction dated 24.12.2015 passed by the trial court is hereby set aside.

23. It is unfortunate that the appellant, from the first date of his arrest, is languishing in jail
because his bail application was rejected by the trial court and this court also, taking into account
that the appeal is ripe for final hearing, did not consider his bail. As a result, the appellant has been
languishing in jail and has already spent more than four years in jail without any fault. Therefore, it
is directed that the appellant shall be released forthwith from jail, if not wanted in any other case.

24. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned for immediate compliance.
----------
8 All. Smt. Rashmi Bhatiya & Anr. Vs Smt Geeta Sharma & Anr.
1155
(2016) 8 ILRA 1155
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Writ A No.- 1974 Of 2015

Smt. Rashmi Bhatiya & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Smt Geeta Sharma & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shri Rishikesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shri Anil Sharma, Shri Sanjay Agrawal

Held -
Background and Parties: The dispute concerns shop No. 341/1-2, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi. Smt. Geeta Sharma
(Respondent No. 1) is the owner and landlady. The original tenant, Naresh Bhatiya, ran a stationery shop;
upon his death, the tenancy passed to his widow (Smt. Rashmi Bhatiya) and two unmarried daughters (Km.
Ritu and Km. Richa).
The Release Application: The landlady filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 ("the Rent Act") to establish an Ayurvedic Clinic, either in the shop's existing form or after
reconstruction. The application was contested by the widow and Km. Ritu Bhatiya, while Km. Richa did not
contest.
Lower Court Decisions: The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application on April 10, 2013, and the
tenants' subsequent appeal was dismissed on February 16, 2014. The tenants filed this writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge both lower court orders.
Petitioners' Three Legal Grounds: The petitioners' counsel, Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, challenged the
judgments on three grounds: (1) the release application was unmaintainable because it was filed by a power
of attorney holder, (2) the courts below erred on the "bona fide need" factor, and (3) comparative hardship
favored the tenants.
Core Issue Identified: Both parties agreed that the primary legal question is whether a power of attorney
holder can validly file a release application. The other two issues (hardship and bona fide need) are mostly
factual and limited under Article 226/227 jurisdiction.
Petitioners' Argument on Maintenance: Sri Tripathi argued that under Section 3(j) of the Rent Act and
Rule 15, a release application must be signed and verified strictly by the owner-landlord themselves and none
else. The current application was signed/verified only by the power of attorney holder, Narendra Mukhraiya.
Nature of the Current Application: The High Court observed that the application was explicitly filed on
behalf of the owner, Smt. Geeta Sharma. The bona fide need set up belonged strictly to the owner-landlady,
not to the personal interest of the attorney holder.
Law on Power of Attorney: A power of attorney is an instrument of agency governed by the Contract Act
and the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882. It is a document of convenience that formally empowers a specified
person to represent and act in the name of the principal.
Supreme Court Precedent on Agency: In Tmt. Kasthuri Radhakrishnan, the Supreme Court held that acts