Reserved On : 13.10.2025 Delivered On: 11.2.2026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Kashi Ram .....Appellant(s)

Versus State of U.P.

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : G.S.Hajela, Mohd. Isa Khan, Narendra Kumar Singh, Panchu Ram Maurya, S.S.Hajela Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.

Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned AGAfor State and perused the material available on record.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.7.1983 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No.27 of 1983, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 376 IPC to undergo 07 years' rigorous imprisonment.

3. In brief, the prosecution case is that Pinna (PW-4), resident of village Meguwa, PS Sojna, District Lalitpur, submitted a written report. He stated that he had a daughter (the victim), aged about 11 years. The daughter of Adhra Kachhi, also a resident of his village, was married to accused Kashi Ram, who was living with his in-laws. On 6.4.1983 at sunset, the victim was alone on her plot known as Bera Kuwa Wala Khet while her parents worked on another field. The accused approached the plot and on the pretext of drinking water, caught hold of the girl, threw her down, and started committing rape despite her protests. Her cries attracted PW-2-Durjana and Phundia, who were returning from their field. They challenged the accused and tried to catch him, but he fled. The victim sustained injuries on her private parts with bleeding. They took her home. On the parents' arrival, she narrated the incident. As it was nighttime, they could not go to the police station. The next morning, Pinna lodged the written report Ex. Ka-3 at the station, on which the chick Ex. Ka-10 was drawn and the case was registered in GD Ex. Ka-11.

4. PW-6 Har Dayal Verma, then SHO Sojna, conducted the investigation.

He recorded statements, inspected the site, prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-5, collected the blood-stained dhoti of the victim (Ex. Ka-4), arrested the accused, and after completing the investigation, submitted the chargesheet Ex. Ka-6.

5. The victim was sent for medical examination. She was examined by PW-3 Dr. R. Subba Raju, who prepared her injury report Ex. Ka-1. No semen marks were found on the victim's dhoti. She noted that the hymen was torn at 3-4 places with bleeding from the edges. A vaginal smear was taken and sent for pathological test (report Ex. Ka-2). In the supplementary report, she opined that the age of the victim was below 11 years (Ex. Ka-2) and that it was difficult to say whether rape had been committed.The case was committed to the Sessions Court, and the accused was charged under Section 376 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses: Victim (PW-1, minor girl), Durjan (PW-2, eyewitness), Dr. R. Subba Raju (PW-3), Pinna (PW-4, complainant), Daulat Singh (PW-5, scribe of the report), Shri Hardayal Verma (PW-6, IO), Dr. N.K. Basantani (PW-7, Radiologist), and Har Prasad (PW-8, scribe of the chick). The prosecution relied upon 13 documents (Exs.

Ka-1 to Ka-13) and two material exhibits I and II.

7. P.W.-victim said her parents had gone to harvest wheat crops that day, leaving her alone at a field near a well. The accused came pretending he wanted water, then threw her to the ground and raped her. She screamed for help, but he covered her mouth. PW-2 Durjana and Phundia heard her cries, rushed over, scolded the accused, and tried to grab him, but he ran away. Her dhoti had blood stains. Durjana and Phundia took her home. Her parents returned after dark, and she told them what happened. PW-2 Durjana said it was almost dark that day. Durjana and Phundia were walking home through the harvested field (khalihaan) when they heard screams near Brijlal's field by the well. They ran over and saw the accused on top of the victim, raping her. They shouted at him, but he fled. They helped the victim home.

8. P