Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(UK) 107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, SIDDHARTHA SAH, JJ.
Safeek Qureshi - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2021,
Decided On : 16-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. B.N. Molakhi, D.A.G.

The court established that a conviction cannot rely on identification that lacks corroboration from earlier proceedings, particularly when witnesses could not confidently identify masked assailants.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(g), 6, IPC Sections 395, 376-D, and Arms Act, 1959 - Conviction and sentencing for grievous offences including rape and robbery - Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish consistent identification of accused due to masked faces of miscreants and absence of test identification parades - Witnesses, including victims, presented conflicting evidence regarding circumstances of the incident and credibility of identification. (Paras 2, 4, 23, 41)

(B) Evidence - Necessity of credible identification and corroboration in court - Conviction based solely on in-court identification lacking prior corroboration during earlier identification parades deemed unsafe. (Paras 16, 40)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted under multiple charges following an incident where they, along with others, allegedly broke into a house, assaulted the family members, robbed property, and committed sexual offenses against the daughters of the victims. Following appeals, the court examined inconsistencies in witness testimonies, absence of credible identification, and issues with the prosecution's evidence.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution was unable to prove the charges against the appellants with credible evidence, leading to doubts regarding their guilt.

Issues: The main issues concerned the adequacy of evidence for identification and the credibility of witness testimonies, particularly with regard to claims of assault.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the requirement for proper identification was not satisfied due to the masked faces of the assailants and the lack of a test identification parade, culminating in a determination that the conviction was baseless.

Result: Appeals allowed; appellants acquitted and released from jail.

Table of Content
1. conviction under pocso act and ipc (Para 2)
2. prosecution's account of the crime (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. discussions regarding juvenile proceedings (Para 8 , 10)
4. defense arguments against evidence (Para 13 , 14)
5. witness testimonies corroborating facts (Para 19 , 20)
6. doubts on witness credibility and identification (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
7. court's judgment on failure of prosecution's case (Para 46)
8. outcome of appeals and orders for acquittal (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Since all the appeals arise from common judgment, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The instant appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2021, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.53 of 2016, State Vs. Rohit and others , by the court of Special Judge, POCSO/Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Haldwani District Nainital. By it, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 395 , 376-D, and Section 5 (g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the POCSO Act). They have been sentenced as hereunder:-

A. Under Section 395 IPC , to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

B. Under Section 376 -D IPC , to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.20,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

C. Under Section 5 (g)/6 of the POCSO Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.20,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

The appellants Nizamuddin and Safeek Qureshi have also been convicted under Section 412 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

The appellant Nizamuddin has also challenged the judgment and order dated 21.01.2021, passed in Special Sessions Trial No.45 of 2016, State Vs. Nizamuddin , by the court of Special Judge, POCSO/Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Haldwani District Nainital. By it, the appellant Nizamuddin has been convicted under Section 4 /25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (“the Arms Act”), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months with a fine of Rs.1,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows: In the intervening night of 23/24.07.2016, at 2:00 in the morning, 10-12 miscreants, armed with lathi, danda and country made pistols entered into the house of PW1, the mother of the victims, and assaulted the family members and looted various articles, including the jewelleries, etc.. They also committed rape on the daughters of PW1, namely PW3, victim S, and PW5, victim U. The report of the incident was lodged by PW1, the mother of the victims, on 24.07.2016, at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital, on the same date. PW3, victim S and PW5, victim U, were medically examined on 24.07.2016. PW3, victim S, was examined at 01:18 p.m. She refused for internal examination. In the history of her medical examination, she has stated that one of the assailants did insert his finger in her vagina, but there was no bleeding and no injury on any part of the body. PW5, victim U, was examined on 24.07.2016, at 1:28 p.m. She also did not have any injury on her person. She has also narrated the same story, as was told by another victim, PW3, victim S.

5. It is the prosecution case that both the victims were again medically examined. PW3, victim S, was examined on 26.07.2016, at 12:30 p.m. and certain injuries were found on her person, though she narrated the same story