Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2242
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SANGEETA CHANDRA, AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, JJ.
Rajesh And Another – Appellants
Versus
The State Of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2004
Decided On : 01-05-2025
For the Appellants : R.P. Singh, K.K. Singh, Kailash Nath Mishra, L.K. Gupta.
The court reaffirmed that a minor's consent is invalid in sexual offences, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's testimony despite contradictions from other witnesses.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, and 376 - Conviction of appellants for kidnapping and rape of minors - Conviction upheld despite one witness turning hostile - Court emphasized that the victim's age and consent are critical in sexual offences - The evidence from the minor victim was consistent and credible, leading to the conclusion that the accused had committed the offences charged. (Paras 25, 24, 32)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114A - Consent of a minor is not valid - Court reaffirmed that a minor's testimony must be given weight unless proven unreliable. (Paras 25, 30)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for abducting two minor girls and subsequently raping one of them. The trial court found the victim's testimony credible despite contradictions in other witnesses' accounts. The victim was 14 years old at the time of the incident, and the court ruled that any consent was invalid. (Paras 1, 24)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was based on the consistent testimony of the minor victim, which was uncontradicted by the accused. The absence of injuries did not discredit the victim's account of the crime. (Paras 26, 32)
Issues: The main issues involved the reliability of witness testimonies, the age of the victim, and the admissibility of the victim's statements against the accused. (Paras 24, 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimony of the minor victim was credible and that the law does not require corroboration for her testimony. The court emphasized the importance of considering the victim's age in determining consent. (Paras 25, 30)
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeal filed against conviction and sentence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background of the case and fir registration. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. victims' statements and medical examination findings. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 16) |
| 4. trial court's evaluation of witness credibility. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. legal standards for assessing consent and evidence in rape cases. (Para 24 , 25 , 30) |
| 6. supreme court's guidance on the reliability of victim testimony. (Para 26 , 29) |
| 7. dismissal of appeal and order for compliance. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
(Sangeeta Chandra, J.)
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants, namely, Rajesh and Ramu against judgment and order dated 22.10.2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court No.5, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2003, convicting the appellants under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo five years imprisonment along with fine under Section 363 I.P.C., to undergo seven years imprisonment under Section 366 along with fine, and to undergo 12 years imprisonment under Section 376 I.P.C. along with fine, with all such sentences to run concurrently.
2. By the time the Appeal came up for hearing the appellants had already undergone their sentence and had been released. This court therefore appointed an Amicus to argue the Appeal on behalf of the appellants.
3. We have heard Sri Kailash Nath Mishra, learned Amicus for the appellants and Sri Balram Singh Yadav learned A.G.A on behalf of the State Respondents.
4. The prosecution story is that one Sri Krishna son of Nihal Raidas approached the Police Station Kakori on 15.09.2002 stating that his brother-in-Law, Sundarlal had sent his daughter ‘S’ aged about 15 years to live in his house in order to enable her to pursue her studies. ‘S’ was studying in Class-X. She developed a friendship with ’A‘, sister of Anand, who was 17 years old and lived in the neighbourhood. The main accused Rajesh used to frequently visit the house of Anand along with Ramu the co-accused, as the sister of Rajesh was married in the same village to one Hari Shankar. On 12.09.2002, ‘S’ and 'A' left their homes at around 09:00 PM, and they did not return. After searching for ‘S’ and ‘A’, the informant Sri Krishna became sure that Rajesh Pasi and Ramu Pasi, along with Hari Shankar had coaxed both the girls to leave their homes and run away with them. He further alleged that ‘S’ had taken jewellery and cash from the house of the informant while running away. He did not specify the exact amount of jewellery and cash allegedly taken away by ‘S’ while running away.
5. On such written report, Constable Clerk Vishwanath Sonkar registered an F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 269 of 2002, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and made entry No. 45 in the GD at 07:30 PM on 15.09.2002 and investigation was assigned to Sub-Inspector Rajiv Ranjan Srivastava.
6. The Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet after completing investigation only against Rajesh and Ramu, and exonerated Hari shankar and the case was committed to the Sessions Court by the Judicial Magistrate Lucknow on 10.01.2003.
7. The prosecution produced Kumari ‘A' as P.W.-1, the informant Sri Krishna as P.W.-2, Kumari ‘S’ as P.W.-3, S.I. Rajiv Ranjan Srivastava as P.W.-4, Dr. Bharti Sharma as P.W.-5, Vishwanath Sonkar Constable Clerk as P.W.-6, Sati Ram Yadav S.I. as P.W.-7.
8. The accused in their statement under Section 313 I.P.C. denied any involvement and alleged that they had been falsely implicated because of enmity and claimed trial but they did not produce any evidence in their defence.
9. After trial was concluded and the Trial Court convicted the appellants as aforesaid, this appeal has been filed and the counsel for the appellants has argued that the conviction of the accused Rajesh and Ramu cannot be sustained as the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence that was produced
