# Surajpal v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1034
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1550 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surajpal-v-state-of-u-p-54094
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expressed by trial court, can be taken. The appellate could should not shy away in giving benefit of
doubt to the accused.

28. Therefore, the appellants cannot be held guilty for offence of dacoity or any other minor
offence and liable to be acquitted for the offence of dacoity and attempt to cause death or grievous
hurt, while committing dacoity, as the trial court has incorrectly adduced evidence. Thus, the
judgment of conviction dated 24.04.1984 in Sessions Trial No.43 of 1977 (State Vs. Hindupat and
others), arose out of Case Crime No.10 of 1975 for offences under Sections 395, 397 IPC, Police
Station Garotha, District Jhansi, is set aside.

29. The appeal is allowed. The accused-appellants Ramphal and Dhuram are acquitted of
offence under Sections 395, 397 IPC. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. The
material Exhibit Nos. 1 to 20, shall be disposed of as per law.

30. Record be remitted back forthwith alongwith the copy of judgment.
---------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1034
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1550 of 2021

Surajpal ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to offences punishable under Sections 376-D.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-Sections 376-D, 506; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Section 6 - occurrence was witnessed by younger daughter of the complainant- but she was not examined
as a witness - ocular version of the prosecutrix-victim not supported from the medical evidence including the
FSL report - no any mark of injury - hymen of the prosecutrix was old torn and healed - clothes worn by the
prosecutrix were not collected - evidence adduced by the prosecution itself throws serious doubts - charges
against the accused have not been proved beyond shadow of a doubt - false implication -Appeals allowed.
(E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil.

List of Acts
1. Indian Penal Code
2. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
2 All. Surajpal Vs. State of U.P.
1035
3. Code of Criminal Procedure

List of Keywords
Ocular version; medical evidence; no mark of injury; old torn and healed; torn clothes were not collected;
serious doubts; not proved beyond shadow of a doubt; false implication.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajeev Sawhney, Veerendra Singh, Vipin Gangwar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Girja Shanker Sen, Krishna Dutt Awasthi.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Appellants namely, Surajpal and Udai Pal are aggrieved against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 16.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal
Case No. 249 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2015, registered at Police Station
Aonla, District Bareilly, whereby they have been convicted under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C., and
sentenced to twenty years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376-D I.P.C. alongwith fine of
Rs.25,000/- each; three years imprisonment under Section 506 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.1,000/-
each, and in the event of default, they have been ordered to undergo further imprisonment of three
months, and fifteen days, respectively. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The subject F.I.R. was registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 9.6.2015
submitted by Dharmpal to Station House Officer Aonla, District Bareilly, who alleged that he is a
resident of village Panvariya, Police Station Aonla, District Bareilly. On 8.6.2015 at around 5 p.m.,
his daughter was bringing fodder from the village, and on the way co-villagers namely, Surajpal s/o
Dilsukh and Udai Pal s/o Kannhiya Lal being drunk had pulled his daughter with bad intentions in
the fields of Rakesh. They both had forcibly torn the clothes of his daughter and raped her. When
complainant's daughter cried and attempted to get herself released, Surajpal gagged her mouth with
a cloth and after raping her, they both left his daughter naked in the fields, and also threatened her,
if, she would disclose it to anyone, the consequences would be adverse. His daughter wearing torn
clothes reached home and narrated the incident to him. The complainant described the age of the
victim as 14 years and requested for registering a case. Broadly, on these allegations, F.I.R. bearing
Case Crime No. 217 of 2015 was registered against the accused persons for alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. After registration of the F.I.R., the investigation in the case was conducted by Investigating
Officer namely, Anoop Singh Rathi, Sub Inspector, who recorded the statements of complainantDharmpal, his wife-Jeera Devi, prosecutrix and Rakesh. During investigation, the victim's medical
report dated 11.6.2015 was collected and site plan was also prepared. The statements of other
formal witnesses were also recorded and finally the charge sheet was filed against the accused
persons under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. thereby sending them to face prosecution for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 6 Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Special Court and vide order dated 11.5.2016 the
charges against the accused persons were framed for alleged commission of offences punishable
under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012. The appellants-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial

5. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons had examined seven
witnesses namely, Dharmpal (P.W.-1), Victim (P.W.-2), Jeera Devi-mother of victim (P.W.-3), Dr.
Shilpi Kesarwani (P.W.-4), Constable Ranveer Singh (P.W.-5), Dr. S.S. Chauhan (P.W.-6) and
Investigating Officer Anoop Singh Rathi (P.W.-7). Besides, the prosecution also adduced
documentary evidence i.e. written complaint (Exb.Ka-1), statement of victim under Section 164
Cr.P.C. (Exb.Ka-2), medical report (Exb.Ka-3), supplementary medical report (Exb.Ka-4),
pathology report (Exb.Ka-5), FSL (Exb. Ka-6), check report (Exb.Ka-7), G.D. entry (Exb.Ka-8),
age certificate (Exb.Ka-9), Site Plan (Exb.Ka-10), Charge Sheet (Exb.Ka-11).

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the separate statements of accused-appellants
were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 1.2.2020, who denied the prosecution evidence.
However, no defence evidence was adduced by the accused persons. Later, vide order dated
19.10.2020 the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. was altered and substituted with Section 376-D
I.P.C.

7. Upon analyzing the prosecution case, evidence and other material on record, the trial court
proceeded to convict the appellants-accused under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 6
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and awarded substantive sentence of
twenty years rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 16.12.2020, the appellants preferred these separate appeals.

8. Mr. Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants assisted by Mr. Vipin Gangwar,
Advocate has argued that the alleged occurrence dated 8.6.2015 is proved by three witnesses, who
are prosecutrix and her parents, but their testimones contain major discrepancies and the same have
been ignored by the trial court while convicting the appellants. Learned counsel submits that
according to witnesses, P.W.-1, P.W.-3 (parents of the prosecutrix) and P.W.-2 (prosecutrix), the
occurrence was witnessed by younger daughter of the complainant, but she was not examined as a
witness. Learned counsel submits that ocular version of the prosecutrix-victim does not find any
support from the medical evidence including the FSL report, therefore, under such circumstances it
cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused-appellants beyond
doubt.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants emphasized that the wife of complainant's nephew
namely, Pappu had eloped with appellant-Surajpal, therefore, because of this enmity, the
complainant falsely implicated Surajpal and his nephew Udai Pal. According to Mr. Rahul Saxena,
learned counsel, the material witness prosecutrix (P.W.-2) admitted in her cross-examination that
wife of Pappu (complainant's nephew) had eloped with Surajpal. Besides, learned counsel for the
appellants has argued that though according to the prosecution witnesses, the clothes worn by the
prosecutrix were torn by the accused persons, but during investigation, no such evidence was
collected or produced before the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellants continued to point
2 All. Surajpal Vs. State of U.P.
1037
out the discrepancies in the prosecution case and finally submitted that the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 16.12.2020 has been passed by the trial court by brushing aside the defects in the
prosecution case. He prays that the impugned judgment of conviction as well as order of sentence
dated 16.12.2020 be set aside, and the appellants be acquitted.

10. On the other hand, Mr. H.P. Gupta, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
Maurya, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the offence committed by the accusedappellants is serious and the material witness P.W.-2 (prosecutrix) clearly testified to name both the
accused persons as well as their involvement in commission of crime against her. Learned counsel
for the complainant has argued that the deposition of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 (parents of prosecutrix)
has also supported the prosecution case and merely, because younger sister of the prosecutrix was
not examined as a witness, this alone would not be sufficient to doubt the prosecution version.
Learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the testimony of P.W.-4 Dr. Shilpi Kersarwani
and argued that she proved the medical examination report dated 11.6.2015 (Exb.Ka-3) and
according to this witness, she found the evidence of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix as her
hymen was torn. Similarly, learned A.G.A. has also argued on the similar lines to contend that
according to P.W.-6 Dr. S.S. Chauhan, the age of the prosecutrix was approximately 16 years,
therefore, her testimony alone is enough to hold the accused guilty of the alleged offences
committed against her. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial court has
carefully analyzed the prosecution evidence in a proper manner and rightly drew the conclusion
that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused beyond doubt, therefore, according
to learned counsel, the impugned judgment of conviction as well as order of sentence dated
16.12.2020 do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. They
prayed that both the appeals be dismissed.

11. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their assistance, case file and the
trial court record has been perused carefully.

12. According to the complainant-P.W.-1, when his 14 years old minor daughter (prosecutrix)
after collecting fodder was returning back home, the accused persons namely, Surajpal and Udai
Pal waylaid and dragged her in the fields of Rakesh and raped her in a pit. The alleged occurrence
dated 8.6.2015 was reported to the police on 9.6.2015 by P.W.-1 through written complaint, and the
entire case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of three witnesses i.e. complainant (P.W.-1),
prosecutrix (P.W.-2) and mother of prosecutrix (P.W.-3). According to these material witnesses,
the occurrence took place at 5 p.m. in an open place and Dr. Shilpi Kesarwani was examined as
P.W.-4, who had medically examined the prosecutrix and proved the medical report (Exb.Ka-3).
Mr. Ranveer Singh (P.W.-5) is a formal witness, who had registered the F.I.R. whereas Dr. S.S.
Chauhan (P.W.-6) gave medical opinion (Exb. Ka-9) about the age of the prosecutrix as
approximately 16 years. Mr. Anoop Singh Rathi (P.W.-7) is the investigating officer, who
conducted the investigation and collected evidence during investigation and finally submitted the
charge sheet (Exb.Ka-11) against the accused persons.

13. The entire case of the prosecution is to be tested on the strength of the material witnesses
P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, and amongst them, the prosecutrix (P.W.-2) is the prime witness
against whom the alleged crime was committed. A perusal of the deposition of P.W.-2 would show
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that she was accompanied by her younger sister-Shyamwati when the accused committed the
crime, and according to the deposition of prosecutrix, the accused persons before committing rape
had tied her sister. Thus, the sister of the prosecutrix was an eye witness, but strangely neither she
was associated in investigation nor was later summoned as a prosecution witness to lend strength to
the version of her elder sister (P.W.-2). The evidence on record including the testimony of
investigating officer does not offer any explanation for not relying upon the material eye witnessShyamwati.

14. Further, according to prosecutrix (P.W.-2), the clothes (Salwar, Kameej and Dupatta) worn
by her were torn by accused persons before she was raped by both the accused. The prosecutrix in
her deposition clearly mentioned that as a result of commission of crime by Surajpal, she had
suffered injuries on her chest and back resulting in bleeding also, who further stated that the rape
by Udai Pal too resulted in more injuries of similar nature to her. At this juncture, this Court deems
it appropriate to analyze the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution to ascertain, if, it
supports the prosecution case, but a reading of the medical examination report dated 11.6.2015
(Exb. Ka-3) does not indicate any mark of injury suffered by prosecutrix (P.W.-2). That apart, it
also reveals that the hymen of the prosecutrix was old torn and healed.

15. A perusal of the evidence of Dr. Shilpa Kesarwani (P.W.-4) makes it abundantly clear that
the prosecutrix had not suffered any injury as deposed by her. Thus, the contradiction between
ocular version and the medical evidence also raises doubt in the prosecution case.

16. Most importantly, the clothes worn by the prosecutrix on the day of occurrence, which
were torn by the accused persons were not collected by the Investigating Officer during
investigation. According to prosecutrix (P.W.-2), she had left the torn clothes at the place of
occurrence, who went back home naked and on the way, she was seen by approximately ten to
twenty persons. As per the deposition of P.W.-1, the house of the prosecutrix is situated at a
distance of 125 meters from the place of occurrence, therefore, it does not appeal to prudence that
if, actually her younger sister accompanied her, she would not make any effort to cover the naked
body of her elder sister.

17. The witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-3) are at a variance with the version of prosecutrix as far
as the clothes of the prosecutrix are concerned, who deposed before the trial court that she returned
home wearing torn clothes. The investigating officer stated that the torn clothes of the prosecutrix
were not handed over to him despite asked by him, therefore, this major discrepancy in the
prosecution case also questions the truthfulness of the prosecution case.

18. The parents of the prosecutrix, who were examined as P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 are not the eye
witness of the occurrence as they came to learn about the incident from the victim. Obviously, the
place of occurrence was also not known to the complainant, but strangely the site plan (Exb.Ka-10)
was prepared by Investigating Officer when he visited the spot with complainant (P.W.-1), and it is
nowhere stated by him that he had earlier seen the place of occurrence with her daughter or her
daughter had explained him about the place of occurrence. Besides, a careful look at the site plan
(Exb.Ka-10) clarifies that point-B wherefrom the prosecutrix was pulled by accused persons is
situated on a Kaccha thoroughfare connecting with the main road, and was taken to point-A-the pit
2 All. Achhaibarrs & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1039
where rape was committed. It is also mentioned in the site plan that the distance between two
points B and A is ten steps, and as per P.W.-3 the people would often roam around near Kaccha
thoroughfare, therefore, it is not believable that the crime committed by accused went unnoticed.
Although, it is the case of the prosecution as well as prosecutrix that her younger sister was
accompanying her when accused persons committed the crime, but the site plan does not at all
indicate the spot where the younger sister was tied by the accused persons before committing the
crime.

19. Thus, in view of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the
evidence adduced by the prosecution itself throws serious doubts on this case and the charges
against the accused have not been proved beyond shadow of a doubt. At this juncture, this Court
finds that the defence set up by the accused that the complainant falsely implicated them in the
case, because Surajpal had eloped with Pooja, wife of Pappu (complainant's nephew) seems
probable as the suggestion in respect of elopement is admitted by prosecutrix in her crossexamination.

20. Now while examining the prosecution case conversely, it also becomes clear that the
prosecution evidence on record is not at all inconsistent to the innocence of the accused persons. A
perusal of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2020 would
show that the trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in a proper manner by
ignoring the material discrepancies in the prosecution case, therefore, it would be unsafe to
maintain the conviction of the appellant.

21. Resultantly, the appeals succeed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 16.12.2020 are hereby set aside, and the appellants Surajpal and Udai Pal are
acquitted of all the charges. The accused-appellants are in jail, who shall be set free immediately,
if, not required in any other offence/case.

22. The appeals are allowed. Record and proceedings be sent back to the trial court forthwith.
---------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1039
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1565 of 1987

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

Issue for consideration