Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Rajan Roy, Brij Raj Singh, JJ
Nirmal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 407 of 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rama Niwas Pathak, Sudhir Kumar Pandey, Syed Raza Mehdi
For the Respondents:Govt. Advocate

Statements of a deceased victim are admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act only when the cause of death is the primary issue. In rape cases, where the cause of death is not linked to the offence, such hearsay statements are inadmissible unless they satisfy the conditions of res gestae.

Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32(1) - Admissibility of statements - Statements of victim to witnesses regarding the incident, where the victim subsequently dies, are only admissible under Section 32(1) when the cause of death is in question and in specific categories prescribed - Statements made by a victim of rape long after the incident do not automatically become admissible if they do not meet the criteria of res gestae (Section 6) or if the context of the death is not linked to the crime as the primary cause.

(B) Criminal Trial - Standard of Proof - Circumstantial evidence - Unless the chain of events is complete and points exclusively to the guilt of the accused, conviction cannot be sustained on suspicion or weak forensic evidence, especially where the link between the DNA/semen and the accused is not established.

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 376 IPC for allegedly raping a 14-year-old mentally challenged victim, while being acquitted of murder and criminal intimidation charges. The prosecution relied on the victim's alleged statements to family and neighbours and a forensic report showing semen on a vaginal swab, though the identity of the source of the semen was never verified.

Findings of Court:
The trial court erred in relying on questionable statements made by witnesses long after the incident. The forensic evidence indicating human semen did not implicate the accused specifically. The chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete.

Issues: Whether the statements of the deceased victim made to third parties are admissible to prove the charge of rape under Section 376 IPC and whether the forensic evidence provided sufficient proof of the accused's guilt.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements of a deceased victim are only relevant under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act when the cause of death is in question. In the absence of medical proof linking the death to the alleged rape, such statements are not admissible for proving a separate substantive offense of rape unless they qualify under the doctrine of res gestae. Forensic evidence of human semen without DNA profiling linking it to the accused is insufficient to secure a conviction.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview of prosecution evidence and trial court findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
2. critical analysis of trial court reasoning and evidence shortcomings. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
3. admissibility of hearsay statements under section 32(1) restricted. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
4. final acquittal due to incomplete chain of evidence. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)

(Per : Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rama Niwas Pathak, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Vimal Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General alongwith Shri Raj Deep Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374 (II) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court-I, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No.46 of 2011; State vs. Nirmal Kumar arising out of Case Crime No.768 of 2010 convicting the appellant Nirmal Kumar for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one year additional imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case in nutshell is that father of the victim had gone out in connection with work for about a week. His mentally challenged daughter, aged about 14 years, was alone in the house. The neighbour (appellant Nirmal Kumar) enticed her (the victim) to his house and raped her. He also extended death threats to her. When the father returned to his house a day before lodging of the FIR, his daughter informed him about the rape. On the date of lodging of FIR the father had gone to Tehsil Rudauli. He returned to his house at 4 p.m., by then, his daughter had died. The incident of rape is of 20.09.2010. An FIR (Ex.Ka-5) was lodged against the appellant for the offence under Sections 376, 302, 506 IPC, on 23.09.2010.

4. Body of the deceased was subjected to post mortem on 24.09.2010 at 3 p.m. by Dr. R. Dwivedi (P.W.5), the Autopsy Surgeon. The post mortem report is Ex. Ka-2. According to it, no marks of injury were found on her private parts. A whitish discharge in the vaginal canal was detected and swab was taken. Cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera was preserved.

5. Vaginal swab and preserved slides were sent for forensic examination. Forensic report is Ex. Ka-16, according to which no sperm or semen was detected on vaginal smear slide, however, sperm and human semen were detected on vaginal swab.

6. The inquest report is Ex.Ka-4 and site plan is Ex.Ka 12.

7. The police conducted the investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the appellant Nirmal Kumar, in Case Crime No.768 of 2010, under Sections 302, 376 and 506 IPC, Police Station Mawai, District Faizabad.

8. The case was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad to the Sessions Court, Faizabad on 04.02.2011.

9. Charges were framed against the appellant Nirmal Kumar by the Sessions Court on 13.04.2011 for the offence under Sections 376, 506 and 302 IPC, which are as under :-

“मैं ब्रह्मदेव मिमश्र, अपर सत्र न्यायाधीश, न्यायालय सं० 1, फै जाबाद आप अभि!यक्त मि$म%ल क ु ुमार पर मि$म्$लिललि)त आरोप लगाता हूं-

प्रथमः यह मिक मिद$ांक-20.09.2010 को समय 12.00 बजे मिद$ वहद स्था$ ग्राम $रौली, था$ा- मवई, जिजला फै जाबाद में आप$े वादी मुकदमा राम सजीव$ की $ाबालिलग पुत्री xxx उम्र 14 वर्ष% के साथ उसकी इच्छा के मिवरूद्ध जबरदस्ती उसके साथ बलात्कार मिकया। इस प्रकार आपका उक्त कृत्य !ा०दं०सं० की धारा 376 के अन्तग%त दण्ड$ीय अपराध है, जो इस न्यायालय के प्रसंज्ञा$ में है。

मिQतीयः यह मिक उपरोक्त मिद$ांक , समय व स्था$ पर आप$े वादी मुकदमा की पुत्री को जा$ से मार$े की धमकी देकर आपराधिधक अभि!त्रास कारिरत मिकया। इस प्रकार आपका उक्त कृत्य !ा०दं०सं० की धारा- 506 के अन्तग%त दण्ड$ीय अपराध है, जो इस न्यायालय के प्रसंज्ञा$ में है。

अंधितमः यह मिक मिद$ांक- 23.09.2010 को समय शाम लग!ग 4.00 बजे के पूव% मिकस

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCHRajan Roy, Brij Raj Singh, JJNirmal Kumar – AppellantVersusState of U.P. – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL No. 407 of 2019

Statements of a deceased victim are admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act only when the cause of death is the primary issue. In rape cases, where the cause of death is not linked to the offence, such hearsay statements are inadmissible unless they satisfy the conditions of res gestae.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Rajan Roy, Brij Raj Singh, JJ
Nirmal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 407 of 2019