# Shanu v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1128
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1613 of 2012
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shanu-v-state-of-u-p-54699
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

1128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of Nanhe (supra),
the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that he had no intention to cause
death of the appellant is not acceptable.

9. Further, though the learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned in the affidavit that
neither he is previous convict nor has any criminal history to his credit yet the learned AGA has
brought on record a list of criminal cases lodged against the appellant which shows that the
appellant had been engaged in commission of offence like murder, attempt to murder and dacoity
with murder etc. In the supplementary affidavit filed on 16.4.2026 the learned counsel for the
appellant has not sufficiently explained the criminal history of the appellant.

10. In view of the above discussions and taking into account the fact that the appellant is a
man of criminal character and had been involved in commission of offences like murder, attempt to
murder and dacoity with murder etc. and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Nanhe (supra), we are of the view that the appellant has not made out a case of bail. The bail
application is accordingly rejected.

Order on appeal

11. Office to prepare the paper book.

12. List this appeal on 6.7.2026 for hearing.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1128
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1613 of 2012

Shanu ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether it is safe to convict the accused solely on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix
which is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of her father and whether the evidence of the prosecutrix
inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality. (Paras
20-23)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Rape and Gang Rape - Appreciation of Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss.
376(g), 342, 506, 120-B - Conviction based on solitary testimony of prosecutrix - Requirement
that evidence must inspire confidence and be of sterling quality - Court required to examine
4 All. Shanu Vs. State of U.P.
1129
whether testimony is absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and consistent with supporting
material - Application to facts where prosecution version suffered from material discrepancies,
absence of injuries, absence of medical corroboration, non-recovery of alleged weapons,
unnatural conduct attributed to parties and failure to support prosecution case through material
evidence - Held, evidence of victim not of sterling quality and could not form sole basis of
conviction - Conviction and sentence set aside and appellants acquitted. (Paras 17-24)
Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Testimony of Prosecutrix - Sole Basis of Conviction - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Ss. 376(g), 342, 506, 120-B - Statement of prosecutrix can sustain conviction if it
inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy and of sterling quality - Material
discrepancies raising serious doubt against prosecution version require corroboration -
Application to facts where allegation of gang rape was not supported by medical evidence and
several circumstances rendered prosecution story highly unlikely and unnatural - Held, trial
court erred in treating uncorroborated statement of victim as gospel truth. (Paras 17-23)
Criminal Evidence - Medical and Scientific Evidence - Effect of Absence of Injuries and Forensic
Support - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 376(g), 342, 506, 120-B - Though injury is not a sine qua
non for deciding whether rape has been committed, factual matrix of each case must be
considered - Application to facts where no mark of injury or sign of use of force was found, no
sperms or gonococci were detected and alleged semen-stained salwar was not scientifically
proved - Held, cumulative discrepancies raised serious doubt regarding prosecution case. (Paras
17, 22-23)
Held: The prosecution evidence revealed material discrepancies inasmuch as it was highly unlikely that a
woman residing in the neighborhood will call a girl to her home abruptly in the afternoon and get her raped
by her husband and another person while the woman will continue to sit outside the room where the rape
was being committed - two persons are said to have raped the victim who was aged between 20-25 years and
yet no mark of injury or sign of use of force was found on any part of her body - the victim said that the
rapists had threatened with a knife and a pistol but no weapon has been recovered from any of the appellants
- it is highly unnatural that the victim did not tell about the incident to her mother on the same day - the
victim's mother has not been produced as a prosecution witness - the salwar alleged to contain semen stains
was not scientifically proved - the allegation of commission of gang-rape is not supported by medical evidence
- the aforesaid discrepancies are material discrepancies which raise serious doubt against the victim's
statement and show that the evidence of the victim is not of sterling quality which may form the sole basis of
conviction - the trial Court held the appellants guilty without taking into consideration the aforesaid relevant
aspects of the matter and by treating the uncorroborated statement of the victim as gospel truth which
vitiates the judgment of the trial Court - consequently the judgment and order convicting and sentencing the
appellants was set aside and the appellants were acquitted of all the charges - (Paras 20-24) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Lalliram v. State of M.P., (2008) 10 SCC 69; Pratap Misra v. State of Orissa [(1977) 3 SCC 41]; Aman Kumar
v. State of Haryana [(2004) 4 SCC 379]; Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand: (2013) 3 SCC 791; Santosh
Prasad v. State of Bihar: (2020) 3 SCC 443; Raju v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 133; State of Punjab v.
Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384; Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21; Krishan Kumar Malik
v. State of Haryana [(2011) 7 SCC 130].

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Evidence Act, 1872

List of Keywords
Gang rape; prosecutrix; solitary testimony; sterling quality; material discrepancies; medical evidence;
pathological examination; vaginal swab; semen stains; absence of injuries; sign of use of force; corroboration;
uncorroborated statement; gospel truth; appreciation of evidence; credibility of witness; acquittal; conviction
set aside.

Case Arising From
1130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals arising from the judgment and order dated 31.10.2012 passed
by the Additional Session Judge (T.E.C.P.-5), Lucknow in Session Trial No. 1237 of 2008 arising out of Case
Crime No. 92/07 under Ss. 342/376/506 I.P.C., P.S. Mall, Lucknow convicting and sentencing the appellants.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shri Kunwar Rudra Pratap Singh.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shri Mohd. Asif Khan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State of U.P.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Kunwar Rudra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri
Mohd. Asif Khan, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State of U.P. Vakalatnama of Shri Kunwar Rudra
Pratap Singh is already there in Criminal Appeal Nos.1613 of 2012 and 1652 of 2012 and he has
filed his vakalatnama in Criminal Appeal No.1625 of 2012, which is taken on record

2. All the three appellants in the aforesaid three appeals are present in person and they
stated that they have already submitted bail bonds and sureties in furtherance of the order dated
01.04.2026 passed by this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the allegation in the present case
is that Smt. Alia called the victim from her home, locked her inside a room along with Shakeel
(husband of Smt. Alia) and Shanu and both of them raped the victim while Smt. Alia was sitting
outside the room. He has submitted that it is highly improbable that a lady would call another
young lady to her home, lock her inside with her husband and another person and get her raped
while she would keep on sitting outside.

4. This was the entire submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and
upon request of the Court to elaborate the submissions and support the same with the material on
record, the learned counsel for the appellant states that he has not brought his paper book.
Therefore, the Court proceeds to examine the record and decide the appeal on its own, virtually
without any assistance from the learned Counsel for the appellants.

5. All the aforesaid three appeals have been filed challenging the validity of the judgment
and order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (T.E.C.P.-5) Lucknow
in Session Trial No. 1237 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 92/07 under Sections 342/376/506
I.P.C., P.S. Mall, Lucknow whereby Shakeel (the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.1652/2012) and
Shanu (the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.1613/2012) have been convicted for the offences under
Section 376(g), 342 and 306 IPC and have been sentenced them for rigorous imprisonment for 10
years and payment of Rs.5,000/- each as fine for the offence under Section 376 (g) IPC, rigorous
imprisonment for three months and payment of Rs.500/- each as fine for the offence under Section
342 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment and payment of Rs.1,000/- as fine for the offence
under Section 506 IPC. The trial Court has convicted Smt. Alia Begum (the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No. 1625 of 2012) for the offence under Section 376/120-B IPC and Section 342 IPC and
has sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for five years and payment of Rs.3,000/- fine for the
4 All. Shanu Vs. State of U.P.
1131
offence under Section 376/120-B and rigorous imprisonment for three months and payment of
Rs.500/- as fine for the offence under Section 342 IPC.

6. The record reveals that the FIR was lodged on the basis of a written complaint given by
the complainant on 10.06.2007 at 14:10 hours stating that while the informant's daughter was
working inside her home at about 03:00-04:00 pm on 06.06.2007, Alia wife of Shakeel, who
resides in the neighborhood, called the victim's daughter on the pretext of making embroidery on a
Kurta. When the informant's daughter reached the home of the appellants Alia, Shakeel and Shanu
were present there under a plan. Both of them caught hold of the victim and took her inside a
Kothri. Alia locked the kothri from the outside and kept on sitting there. Both the accused persons
raped the victim. One of them threatened her with a knife and the other threatened her with the
pistol. After reaching home, the victim did not tell anything to her mother in spite of being asked.
Her father had gone somewhere outside. When he reached home, the victim gave information about
the incident. Thereupon, the FIR was lodged.

7. The medico-legal examination report of the victim did not reveal any mark of injury on
any part of her body, including her private parts. The hymen was old, torn and healed. The
pathological examination report of vaginal swab slides did not reveal the presence of spermatozoa
or gonococci. As per the X-ray examination report, the victim was over 18 years of age.

8. The informant was examined as PW-1 and he reiterated the FIR version. He stated that
her daughter came back home weeping after the incident. Because of fear, she did not tell anything
to her mother. When he made a phone call on 09.06.2007, the mother of the victim told him about
the incident on the phone and thereafter he returned home in the night and lodged the First
Information Report on 10.06.2007. The salwar worn by the victim at the time of the incident had
stains of semen and it was deposited in the police station.

9. The victim was examined as PW-2. She stated that the incident took place at about 3-4
PM on 06.06.2007. She was making a kurta inside her home. Alia came there and asked her to
accompany her to her home and make a kurta there. When she refused to go, Alia insisted. The
victim went with her. The other appellants Shanu and Shakeel were present there. Shakeel pulled
her inside. Alia locked the door from outside. Shakeel and Shanu threatened her with a knife and a
pistol. Shakeel raped her first while Shanu was keeping her mouth shut and thereafter Shanu did the
same thing while Shakeel kept her mouth shut. Thereafter both of them threatened her, Alia opened
the door and she went home crying. She did not tell about the incident to her mother on the same
day and told her about it later. Her father had gone to Delhi and he made a phone call on the same
night. Her mother called her father home. When her father made a phone call on 09.06.2007, her
mother told him all the things and thereafter her father returned home in the morning and she went
to the police station to lodge a report. She also stated that her salwar was deposited in the police
station.

10. The doctor who had medically examined the victim was examined as PW-5. She
proved the medical examination report and she stated that there was no injury mark on any part of
the body of the victim, including her private parts. The hymen was old torn. She had prepared
vaginal swab slides for pathological examination and had referred the victim to a radiologist. She
1132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stated that although the hymen was old torn, she could not say with certainty that the victim was
habitual of sexual intercourse. As per the X-ray examination report, the age of the victim could be
about 20 years or at the most 25 years.

11. The doctor who had conducted the pathological examination report stated that no
sperms or gonococci were found in the pathological examination of vaginal swabs.

12. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused Shakeel stated that
Bakrid festival occurred a few days prior to the incident. The fair price shop owner had given him
one sack full of sugar for being distributed.He was distributing sugar. Mukhtar Ahmed (father of
the victim) forcefully tried to take him to his home. An altercation had taken place at that time due
to which reason Mukhtar Ahmed had falsely implicated him. However, the accused persons did not
adduce any evidence.

13. The trial Court held that the informant was not present on the date of the incident. He
was in Delhi. Upon coming to know about the incident, he came back and lodged the FIR.
Therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR has sufficiently been explained.

14. On behalf of the accused persons, some discrepancies in the statement were highlighted
like at page-8 of the statement, the victim had stated that as soon as she reached the door of the
house of Alia, Shakeel caught hold of her hand and Alia locked the door. When Shakeel had pulled
her, two-three bangles in her hand had got broken but she did not suffer any injury. The defense
claimed that this statement has not been given in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
or in the examination-in-chief. The trial Court held that this statement was made in response to a
question put during cross examination and it cannot be said to be an improvement in the statement.

15. The defense counsel had contended that in case the victim had resisted commission of
gang-rape, some marks of resistance would certainly be visible on her body but the medico-legal
examination report reveals no mark of injury or sign of use of force and no evidence of intercourse.
The trial Court rejected this submission on the ground that mere penetration is sufficient to make
out the offence of rape and nothing more is required. The trial Court stated that the absence of
sperm or gonococci in pathological examination report does not disprove commission of rape. The
trial Court further held that although salwar of the victim is said to be having stains of semen and it
was deposited with the police, it has not been sent for forensic examination, but this defect in
prosecution would not give any benefit to the accused as the statement of the victim is sufficient to
establish the guilt of the accused persons.

16. The trial Court further observed that there was a question in its mind that it appears to
be quite unnatural that a lady will call any girl to her house and get her raped by her husband. The
trial Court held that although it appears to be unnatural but it is not impossible. When the victim's
statement describes the incident, the evidence would override the mere probabilities. The trial
Court accordingly held the appellants Shakeel and Shanu guilty of the offences under
Sections376(g), 342 and 306 IPC and Smt. Alia for the offences under Section120-B read with
Section 376IPC and 342 IPC.
4 All. Shanu Vs. State of U.P.
1133
17. In Lalliram v. State of M.P., (2008) 10 SCC 69, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
-

 "11.It is true that injury is not a sine qua non for deciding whether rape has been
committed. But it has to be decided on the factual matrix of each case. As was observed by this
Court inPratap Misrav.State of Orissa[(1977) 3 SCC 41] where allegation is of rape by
many persons and several times but no injury is noticed that certainly is an important factor and if
the prosecutrix's version is credible, then no corroboration is necessary. But if the prosecutrix's
version is not credible then there would be need for corroboration. (SeeAman Kumarv.State
of Haryana[(2004) 4 SCC 379].)"

(Emphasis added)

18. In Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand: (2013) 3 SCC 791, the Honble Supreme
Court held that: -

 "14.The prosecution case is that the appellant has committed the offence of rape on the
prosecutrix on 14-2-1993. She is the solitary witness to prove the charge. The same is sought to be
corroborated by her mother, PW 2 who has supported the prosecution case on the basis of
narration of the alleged offence by the prosecutrix to her. It is an undisputed fact that both the
appellant and the prosecutrix are classmates and had good acquaintance with each other as they
were exchanging books. The case of the prosecution is that she had given her book to the appellant.
She asked him to return the same and he asked her to go to his house on 14-2-1993 to take back the
book. Accordingly, she went to the house of the appellant. When she entered the house he locked
the door of the house from inside. At that time she had not raised an alarm, except stating that she
insisted not to lock the door of the house as there were no other inmates in the house at that point
of time. The version of the prosecutrix is that she could not raise alarm as the appellant had
threatened her with a knife. Further case of the prosecution is that he had then committed the
offence of rape on her. Further, she has stated that while the appellant was committing rape on her
she got pain in her private part and at that point of time also she wanted to raise alarm, but he had
shown the knife to her not to raise alarm. Thus, the prosecution story as narrated by the
prosecutrix is most improbable and unnatural.

* * *

 22.For the aforesaid reasons the prosecution case is not natural, consistent and
probable to believe to sustain the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the alleged offence
said to have been committed by him."

(Emphasis added)

19. In Santosh Prasad v. State of Bihar: (2020) 3 SCC 443, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to certain precedents in the following paragraphs: -
1134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "5.4.1.InRaju[Rajuv.State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 133], it is observed and held by
this Court in paras 11 and 12 as under: (SCC p. 141)

 "11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to
the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation
and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of
false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be
borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when
the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual
assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a
witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.

 12. Reference has been made inGurmit Singh case[State of Punjabv.Gurmit
Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384] to the amendments in 1983 to Sections 375 and 376 of the Penal Code
making the penal provisions relating to rape more stringent, and also to Section 114-A of the
Evidence Act with respect to a presumption to be raised with regard to allegations of consensual
sex in a case of alleged rape. It is however significant that Sections 113-A and 113-B too were
inserted in the Evidence Act by the same amendment by which certain presumptions in cases of
abetment of suicide and dowry death have been raised against the accused. These two sections,
thus, raise a clear presumption in favour of the prosecution but no similar presumption with
respect to rape is visualised as the presumption under Section 114-A is extremely restricted in its
applicability. This clearly shows that insofar as allegations of rape are concerned, the evidence
of a prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is
probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should, without exception, be taken as
the gospel truth. Additionally, her statement can, at best, be adjudged on the principle that
ordinarily no injured witness would tell a lie or implicate a person falsely. We believe that it is
under these principles that this case, and others such as this one, need to be examined."

 5.4.2.InRai Sandeep[Rai Sandeepv.State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21], this
Court had an occasion to consider who can be said to be a sterling witness. In para 22, it is
observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29)

 "22. 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 consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any
prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the
cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance
should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as
the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other
supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence
4 All. Shanu Vs. State of U.P.
1135
committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently
match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the
test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in
the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if
the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be
applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a sterling witness whose version
can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be
punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime
should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and
material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the
court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for
holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."

 5.4.3.InKrishan Kumar Malikv.State of Haryana[(2011) 7 SCC 130], it is
observed and held by this Court that no doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for
commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided
the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should
be of sterling quality.

20. With the aforesaid decisions in mind, it is required to be considered, whether it is safe
to convict the accused solely on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix which is sought to be
corroborated by the evidence of her father (PW-1). Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires
confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality?

21. The victim (PW-2) stated that while she was making a kurta at her home, Alia came
there at about 3-4 pm on 06.06.2007 and asked her to accompany her to her home and make a kurta
there. Initially she did not agree, but when Alia insisted, the victim went with her. The other
appellants Shanu and Shakeel were present there. Shakeel pulled her inside. Alia locked the door
from outside. Shakeel and Shanu threatened her with a knife and a pistol. Shakeel raped her first
while Shanu was keeping her mouth shut and thereafter Shanu did the same thing while Shakeel
kept her mouth shut. Thereafter, both of them threatened her, Alia opened the door and she went
home crying.

22. A scrutiny of the prosecution evidence reveals the following discrepancies: -

 (i) Firstly, it is highly unlikely that a woman residing in the neighborhood will call a girl
to her home abruptly in the afternoon and get her raped by her husband and another person while
the woman will continue to sit outside the room where the rape was being committed.

 (ii) Secondly, two persons are said to have raped the victim, who was aged between 2025 years and yet no mark of injury or sign of use of force was found on any part of her body.

 (iii) Thirdly, the victim said that the rapists had threatened with a knife and a pistol, but
no weapon has been recovered from any of the appellants.
1136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (iv) Fourthly, it is highly unnatural that the victim did not tell about the incident to her
mother on the same day. The victim said that she told about the incident to her mother later, but she
did not specify as to when did she tell it to her mother.

 (v) Fifthly, the victims father had gone to Delhi and he made a phone call on the same
night, her mother called her father home without knowing about the incident. From the aforesaid
statement it appears that the victim firstly told about the incident to her mother, but the victims
mother has not been produced as a prosecution witness.

 (vi) Sixthly, the victim stated that her salwar was deposited in the police station. The
informant PW-1 stated that the salwar worn by the victim at the time of the incident has stains of
semen on it. The salwar was produced before the trial Court as material exhibit no. 2 and it was
proved by the PW-4 constable Kamta Ram, but he did not state that the salwar had any stain on it
and no semen stains were shown to the Court. During cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he could
not tell as to whether the salwar had any stains and what was the cause of the stains.

 (vii) Seventhly, PW-5 - the doctor who had medically examined the victim, stated that
there was no injury mark on any part of the victims body of the victim, including her private
parts. The hymen was old torn. PW- 7 the pathologist, stated that no sperms or gonococci were
found in the pathological examination of vaginal swabs. Therefore, the allegation of commission of
gang-rape is not supported by medical evidence.

23. The aforesaid discrepancies are material discrepancies which raise serious doubt
against the victims statement and the aforesaid discrepancies show that the evidence of the victim
is not of sterling quality, which may form the sole basis of conviction. The trial Court has held the
appellants guilty without taking into consideration the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter and
by treating the uncorroborated statement of the victim as gospel truth, which vitiates the judgment
of the trial Court.

24. In view of the foregoing discussion, all the three appeals are allowed.The judgment
and order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Additional Session Judge (T.E.C.P.-5) Lucknow in
Session Trial No. 1237 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 92/07 under Sections 342/376/506
I.P.C., P.S. Mall, Lucknow convicting and sentencing the appellants is set aside. The appellants are
acquitted of all the charges.

25. The appellants are directed to comply with the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. and
execute bail bonds with sureties within a period of two weeks, to appear before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case any appeal is filed against this order and the Honble Supreme Court issues
notice of the appeal and such bail bonds shall be in force for six months.

26. Before parting with the case, I am constrained to observe that normally about 100 old
Criminal Appeals are listed before this Bench on any single day, besides the fresh cases and
criminal cases related to M.Ps., M.L.As., M.L.Cs., C.B.I., E.D. and acid attack victims. Although it
is the duty of the Court to decide the case, the Court is entitled to receive assistance from the
Advocates in deciding cases. More often than not, the Court has to deal with poor assistance or no
4 All. Brijbasi Lal & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1137
assistance provided by the Advocate and at times, the Court has to deal with matters where
the Advocates place incorrect facts or law before the Court. This creates a big obstacle in
expeditious dispensation of justice and lack of proper assistance by the Advocates is a major cause
of delay in decision of cases. The present bunch of three appeals has been decided by me
practically without any assistance by the learned Counsel for the appellants, which resulted in
consumption of much more time in deciding these appeals than was justifiable.

27. The Advocates are an integral part of justice dispensation. I have time and again been
requesting the Advocates to provide better assistance to the Courts. I once again request the
members of the bar to realize the importance of their role in justice dispensation, respect their
professional duty and provide assistance to the Courts in dispensation of justice by advancing
precise and concise submissions with the help of relevant law, to the best of their ability. Hope this
request will not go in vain, like numerous previous requests.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1137
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1735 of 1987

Brijbasi Lal & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the trial court has rightly appreciated the testimonies of witnesses of fact and
reached to the right conclusion of convicting the accused appellant? (Para 16)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction - appreciation of chance witnesses - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 307 - evidence of chance
witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny and must adequately explain presence at
place of occurrence, but cannot be discarded merely because the witness happened to be
present by chance - where the two chance witnesses were inconsistent inter se, in conflict with
the informant, and failed to explain their presence, their testimony was not inspiring confidence
- conviction set aside and benefit of doubt granted. (Paras 17 to 27)
Criminal Law - attempt to murder - evaluation of ocular and medical evidence - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - S. 307 - medico legal evidence proved gunshot injuries on a vital part of the body
and injuries were sufficient to cause death though simple in nature, but inconsistent ocular
version, doubtful presence of chance witnesses, and defective investigation created reasonable
doubt - accused entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 22 to 27)
Criminal Law - defective investigation - non-recovery of blood stained clothes, earth and
weapon - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 307 - faulty investigation by itself is not a ground for
acquittal if the prosecution evidence is consistent, reliable, trustworthy and cogent, but where