Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, SANDEEP JAIN, JJ.
Shailendra Kushwaha – Appellant
versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7898 of 2017 and CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 243 of 2018
Decided on : 14-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of victim's recovery and statements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. victim's inconsistent testimonies. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. informant's testimony and evidence. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. witness testimonies and evidence presented in court. (Para 17 , 22) |
| 6. details of the police investigation and witness accounts. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. arguments presented by the defense and the prosecution regarding the victim's credibility. (Para 23) |
| 8. defense arguments presented. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. court's legal standards for evidence assessment. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. analysis of evidence and reasons for doubt. (Para 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 11. court's observations on the evidence and its reliability. (Para 33 , 38) |
| 12. final judgment and order of acquittal. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi and Sri Gopal Khare (for the appellant no. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2018 and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. Both these Criminal Appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Jalaun at Orai in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2014 (State Vs. Manvendra Singh @ Jhamman Pal, Malik Chandra and Shailendra Kushwaha), in Case Crime No. 629 of 2014, Police Station Jalaun, District Jalaun, whereby, accused Manvendra Singh @ Jhamman Pal, Malik Chandra and Shailendra Kushwaha have been convicted under Section 363 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months, under Section 366 I.P.C for seven year’s simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of one year and under Section 376-D I.P.C and ¾ POCSO Act for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo additional simple imprisonment of two years. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. The factual matrix is that the informant ‘M’ P.W-2 gave a typed written application on 05.04.2014 to the Circle Officer, Jalaun with the averments that her minor daughter ‘X’, who was a student of Class X was enticed to elope on 31.03.2014 at about 04:00 a.m. morning by accused Shailendra Kushwaha. In the morning ‘M’ went to accused Shailendra Kushwaha’s house and called him, thereafter he had phoned ‘X’ and then ‘X’ told her that she was present at Auraiya Bus Stand, then ‘M’ and others went to Auraiya Bus Stand, but before she could reach the Bus Stand, accused Manvendra Singh reached there and then accused Shailendra Kushwaha passed ‘X’ to accused Manvendra Singh. Manvendra Singh told them that ‘X’ has been found and they would bring her back, but Manvendra did not bring ‘X’ back to her house and instead coaxed and made ‘X’ flee with his neigbour’s son Manvendra Pal. When in the evening Manvendra Singh came to the house of ‘M’, then he was asked about ‘X’, then Manvendra Singh told her that ‘X’ had escaped. She had given information about this incident to the Police Station Kotwali, Jalaun on 01.04.2014, but no action has been taken yet. It has come to her notice that ‘X’ is staying with Manvendra Singh’s relative (Mausa) Raju in Gujarat, in Mohalla Modarsa. Manvendra’s mobile number is 9586435089.
4. On 05.04.2014, the Circle Officer, Jalaun, ordered the S.H.O to get the matter investigated and to initiate legal action. Thereafter, Case Crime No. 629 of 2014, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C was registered on 08.04.2014 at 11:30 a.m. at P.S Kotwali, Jalaun against accused Shailendra Kushwaha , Manvendra Singh and Manvendra Pal. The check F.I.R. is Ex.Ka-8 is on record.
5. The victim ‘X’ (examined as P.W-1 in the trial court), was recovered on 19.05.2014. The Recovery Memo is Ex.Ka-6.
6. The first statement of victim ‘X’ P.W.-1, u
AI
The court emphasized that inconsistent testimonies and lack of credible evidence from the victim led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove cases of abduction and rape beyond reasonable doubt, especially when relying on the sole testimony of ....
The conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it is full of contradictions and lacks corroborative evidence.
The conviction for rape can be upheld based on the victim's credible testimony, even in the absence of corroborative physical evidence, emphasizing the importance of direct ocular evidence.
The prosecution's reliance on the victim's inconsistent testimony did not meet the evidentiary standard required for conviction, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
The court upheld the conviction against the appellant based solely on the victim's credible testimony, emphasizing that societal pressures do not negate the legal obligation to report sexual offenses....
Point of Law - No legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction.
The court affirmed a conviction under the POCSO Act based on the credible testimony of the victim, emphasizing that the absence of corroboration does not question the conviction if the victim's accou....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
