Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2901

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajnish Kumar, J.
Vijay Prakash Shukla - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1999
Decided On : 21-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Yogendra Singh, Kailash Nath Mishra, Kaushal Mani Tripathi, R.P. Misra, Trishita Singh

The conviction for kidnapping and attempted rape was upheld, emphasizing that familial relationships do not negate the gravity of sexual offences against minors.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 374(2); Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 368, 376/511 - Conviction and sentencing of the appellant for kidnapping and attempted rape of a minor. (Paras 2, 6, 29)

(B) Legal principles discussed: The law provides specific punishments for various degrees of kidnapping and sexual assault. The evidence presented indicated that the victim was a minor and her testimony was credible despite attempts to discredit it. (Paras 10, 24)

(C) The court emphasized that in cases of sexual offences, familial ties and related circumstances could affect the timing and reporting of the crime. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for kidnapping a minor girl under the pretext of taking her for a bath and was found guilty of attempted sexual assault. The case hinged on witness testimonies and medical reports indicating the victim's age and lack of penetration. (Paras 4, 8, 10)

Findings of Court:
The appellant's actions constituted crimes under relevant IPC sections for kidnapping and attempted rape. The court held that attempts to undermine the victim's testimony were unsubstantiated. (Para 29)

Issues: The key issues were the credibility of the victim's testimony and whether the delay in reporting the crime affected the prosecution's case. (Paras 17, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court's reasoning underscored the importance of evaluating the evidence in light of the victim's age and the context of the relations between the accused and the victim, highlighting that familial ties should not preclude conviction. (Paras 27, 30)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. criminal conviction based on substantial evidence. (Para 2 , 5 , 12)
2. factual basis of abduction and attempts of sexual assault. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. facts establishing the basis of the kidnapping and subsequent charges. (Para 6)
4. offences proven under ipc regarding kidnapping and attempted rape. (Para 11 , 14 , 15)
5. legal definitions and interpretations concerning rape and abduction. (Para 16 , 18)
6. legal definitions and principles applicable to the conviction for attempt to commit rape. (Para 19)
7. judicial considerations for delay in reporting sexual offences. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
8. rejection of appeal and affirmation of trial court's judgment. (Para 28 , 29)
9. final decisions and reasoning supporting the dismissal of the appeal against the conviction. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Kaushal Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Government Advocate (here-in-after referred as AGA).

2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (here-in-after referred as CrPC) has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 28.04.1999 passed in Session trial No. 545 of 1987; State vs. Ram Chandra and others, Police Station Wazirganj, District Gonda by 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda by means of which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (here-in-after referred as IPC), three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 368 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 376 /511 IPC and in default of payment of fine, six months additional simple imprisonment. It has further been provided that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Gomti Prasad on the basis of a written complaint dated 23.11.1986 lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 129 of 1986 under Section 363 /366 IPC at Police Station Wazirganj, District Gonda alleging therein that accused Ram Chandra son of Sheetla Prasad, Vijay Prakash Shukla and Anil Kumar Shukla both sons of Jagdamba Prasad took away his daughter Km. Shakuntala Devi, aged about 11 years at 04:00 in the morning of 16.11.1986 for taking bath to Ayodhya. On 17.11.1986 at 04:00 in the evening, two accused(s) namely Ram Chandra and Anil Kumar came back but his daughter did not come back. The said accused informed to the complainant that his daughter is with the accused Vijay Prakash Shukla and she will come with him. Accused Vijay Prakash Shukla came back to home on 18.11.1986 at 10:00 in the night but his daughter did not come back with him. When the complainant asked Vijay Prakash Shukla about his daughter Shakuntala, then he said that he do not know about her. The complainant inquired about his daughter in his relations and a panchayat was called on 22.11.1986 in the evening, in which the inquiry was made from Ram Chandra but he declined to inform anything and stated that he does not know as to where Shakuntala has gone.

4. Subsequently, Km. Shakuntala Devi was recovered on 02.12.1986 along with Vijay Prakash Shukla while they were going via Durjanpur to Parsarampur. Accordingly, the girl was recovered and the accused was arrested. The girl was examined by Dr. Ranjana Singh, Medical Officer posted at District Government Women Hospital, Gonda on 03.12.1986 and her X-ray was done by another Dr. P.C. Shukla on 04.12.1986 for determination of her age. Thereafter, a supplementary report was given by Dr. Ranjana Singh, according to which, the age of girl was about 13 years. It was further reported that there was no intercourse with the girl and no entrance into vagina was found. Sub Inspector Bans Raj Bharti investigated the matter. He recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the site plan of the place of incident and place of recovery and after investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused(s).

5. The