Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 683

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Rajesh Singh Rathore - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 958 of 2018
Decided On : 22-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kapil Dev Srivastava, Anita, Ashish Kumar Singh, Pal Singh Yadav, Prathama Singh, Rajeev Prakash Anand, Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, Sharad Dixit, Shivam Gupta
For the Respondent: G.A.

Conviction for child sexual abuse is sustainable upon credible victim testimony corroborated by medical evidence, notwithstanding procedural omissions in questioning or incomplete forensic testing, provided the factual allegations were clearly communicated and the evidence remains cogent and trustworthy.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5, 6, 9 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Aggravated sexual assault against minor - Conviction based on victim statement and medical evidence - Scope of procedural non-mentioning of sections - Failure to conduct forensic testing - Effect on conviction.

(B) Examination of accused - Non-mention of a specific section in the provided questions under the code does not vitiate conviction if the facts constituting the offence were clearly presented to the accused during the questioning process. (Para 17)

(C) Investigative lapses - Incomplete forensic reports are not fatal to a conviction if the remaining evidence, consisting of the testimony of the victim and medical examination reports, is sufficiently cogent to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 19, 20)

(D) Evidentiary credibility - The testimony of an child victim of sexual assault, if found credible and supported by medical findings, holds sufficient weight to sustain a conviction without redundant corroboration. (Paras 21, 26)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for aggravated sexual assault against his minor daughter. In appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that procedural requirements during his statement were not met, that the investigation was incomplete due to a failure to verify biological samples on clothing and the absence of specific forensic findings, and requested a reduction in the sentence.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that identified flaws in the investigation, including the failure to test blood samples, did not negate the conviction when the overall evidence was strong. The medical records and the consistent, trustworthy testimony of the victim provided sufficient proof of the offences. Procedural objections regarding questioning were rejected as the substance of the allegations was clearly communicated to the accused.

Issues: The main issues were whether procedural omissions in questioning the accused and gaps in forensic investigation warrant acquittal, and to what extent child victim testimony requires external corroboration.

Ratio Decidendi: Deficiencies in criminal investigation do not mandate acquittal if independent evidence remains reliable. Testimony of a victim is sufficient for conviction when it inspires confidence and is corroborated by professional medical opinion; procedural requirements are met if the factual basis of the charges is conveyed to the accused.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and foundational accusations of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. examination of testimony and medico-legal evidence for prosecution. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. requirement of fair process and sufficiency of section 313 crpc statements. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. impact of minor investigative lapses on the weight of prosecution evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. evidentiary value of sole testimony and medical corroboration in sexual assault. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
6. distinguishing judicial precedents based on unique factual circumstances. (Para 28 , 29)
7. statutory classification of aggravated sexual assault vs. sexual assault. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
8. final confirmation of conviction and mandatory minimum sentencing compliance. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Pal Singh Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Mohd. Asif Khan, the learned AGA-I for the State.

2. By means of the instant appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the appellant has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Lucknow in Session Trial No.869 of 2015 titled State v. Rajesh Singh Rathore arising out of Case Crime No.259 of 2015 under Section 376 IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act registered at Police Station-Krishna Nagar, District- Lucknow.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on the basis of a written complaint given by the appellant's wife on 20.07.2015 stating that the appellant had repetitively committed the misdeed against her daughter aged 9 years. The daughter had informed her that the appellant commits penetrative intercourse and bites on her private parts.

4. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that her father (the appellant) used to insert his finger in her vagina. She stated that blood was coming out of her vagina while urinating.

5. The medico-legal examination of the victim was conducted on 20.07.2015 itself at 05:00 PM. Swabs were collected for pathological examination and clothes of the victim were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The medico-legal examination report mentions that there was swelling and redness on vagina and on inner sides of thighs, hymen was torn with old, healed tags of membrane were present and that the victim was bleeding during urination. The pathological examination report did not reveal presence of spermatozoa (dead or alive). The Forensic Science Laboratory report mentions presence of blood on underwear of the victim.

6. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence and on 07.11.2015, the charges were framed against the appellant for commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC and 5/6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act).

7. The informant was examined as PW-1. She stated that she got married to the appellant in the year 2005. She lived for nine years in the house of her parents with her husband and her children. In the year 2018, her mother got a new house constructed in Sangam Vihar Colony, Krishna Nagar and gave the same to her and thereafter she shifted in that house along with her husband (the appellant), daughter and son. On 19.07.2015, her daughter was crying and was frightened. Upon being asked, she informed that the appellant commits the misdeed with her. He puts his penis in her mouth as well as in her vagina. He did so on 19.07.2015 in a room situated on the upper floor of the house. She further told that the appellant had bitten on her vagina. PW-1 stated that there were bite marks on the vagina and there was redness on that area.

8. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that she got married in the year 2005. The daughter (the victim) was born in the year 2006. She stayed in her sasural till chouthi ceremony, i.e., only for four da