HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2276 of 2017 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent. 2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 20.4.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Case No.36 of 2016 (State vs. Shambhu) arising out of Case Crime No.11 of 2016, under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kailiya, District Jalaun, whereby the appellant has been has been convicted and sentenced as follows :- Under Section 363 I.P.C. - Five Years Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default in payment the appellant shall undergo three months additional imprisonment. Under Section 366 I.P.C. - Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine Rs.5,000/- and in case of default in payment the appellant shall undergo six months additional imprisonment. Under Section 3/4 of of the Protection of Children From Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pankaj Kushwaha, Suresh Chandra Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shambhu .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) Sexual Offences Act - Ten Years Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default in payment the appellant shall undergo one year additional imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case in nutshell :- On 19.01.2016, at about 3:30 PM, the complainant Ranjit S/o Gangacharan, resident of Kudari, Police Station Kailiya, District Jalaun, filed a written complaint at Police Station Kailiya stating that the incident occurred on 18.01.2016 at 6:30 PM in the village Kudari, Police Station Kailiya, District Jalaun. The complainant's daughter/victim aged about 15, born on December 5, 2000, had gone to her Chaupayari home where one Om Prakash's S/o Lakhan, resident of Kudari brother-in-law, Shambhu, S/o Sarman (accused), resident of village Chirgaon Khurd, police station Samthar, district Jhansi, along with another unknown person, lured the complainant's daughter/victim onto a motorcycle and forcibly took her away. Gangacharan S/o Shivdayal, and Brijesh S/o Shivbalak, saw them at the scene and challenged them, but the motorcycle drove away. The complaint returned home and recounted the entire incident. The complaint searched all night but found no clue. It was also noted that accused Shambhu has two mobile phones, on which he spoke to 8009203538 at 5:30 pm on January 19, 2016, the said number subsequently got switched off. The second mobile no.9559873116 was ringing, but got picked up. Based on the above complaint, a case was registered against accused Shambhu and an unknown person under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and a First Information Report was lodged. The case was investigated. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer took statements from the complainant and witnesses, inspected the scene of the incident and prepared a site map. During investigation, the abducted victim was recovered, her medical examination was conducted, and educational certificates regarding the victim's education and date of birth were collected. Her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. After CRLA No. 2276 of 2017 2 completing all other investigation proceedings, a charge sheet was filed against accused Shambhu under sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Upon which cognizance was taken by the Court and accused were summoned to face trial. On appearance before the Court, the accused was charged under sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused denied the charges against him and requested a trial. 4. The prosecution in order to prove it's case examined, P.W.1 complainant Ranjeet, P.W.-2 victim, P.W.-3 Brijesh, P.W.-4 Constable Rajkumar, P.W.- 5 Dr. Kavita Kori, P.W.-6 Kanhaiyalal Kushwaha, Headmaster, P.W.-7 Sub Inspector Pramod Kumar. P.W.-1 Ranjeet testified that victim is his daughter and stated that the incident took place when she was going to the cattle shed. The witness stated that his father informed him of the incident. He searched for the girl/victim and when she wasn't found, he got a typed report prepared and submitted it to police station. P.W.-2 is the victim herself who supported the prosecution version and stated that she was currently studying in class 11th and when she was returning she encountered the accused Shambhu, along with the unknown companion. She also stated that he threatened her with a country made pistol to go with him else he would kill her brother. P.W.-3 Brijesh supported the prosecution in his testimony and stated that on the day of the incident, he was sitting near the Chaupayari Bakhri of the field when Shambhu was forcibly taking Ranjeet's daughter. P.W.-4 Constable Rajkumar stated in his testimony that on the day of the incident he was posted as C.C.T.K.S at P.S. Kailiya and he identified Ext. CRLA No. 2276 of 2017 3 ka-4 (G.D entry) and paper no.4k (FIR) as being typed by him. P.W.-5 Dr. Kavita Kori, while presenting evidence of conducting the external and internal medical examination of the victim, stated that the medical report and supplementary report bear her signature as Exhibit ka-6 and Exhibit k-7. P.W.6- Kanhaiyalal Kushwaha stated that victim has been a student of his school and identified the School Register as Exhibit ka-8 and Transfer Certificate as Exhibit ka-9. P.W.-7 Sub Inespector Pramod Kumar was posted as S.H.O who took over the investigation of the case. He recorded the statement of the witnesses, inspected the site map as Exhibit ka-10 and submitted chargesheet as Exhibit ka-11. 5. After the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that the prosecution story is false and the case against him is wrongly pursued. 6. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties:- Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had assaulted the complainant, Ranjit, while siding with his brother-in-law, Omprakash. Therefore, the complainant, Ranjit, colluded with the police to falsely implicate him. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that P.W.-2 stated on page 6 of the cross-examination that the statement she gave to the Inspector and Magistrate was false and that she had given it at the behest of the police. There are substantial contradictions in the statements given by the victim to the Inspector, the Magistrate, and in court, and therefore, the veracity of her statement cannot be trusted. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that on January 18, 2016, at around 6:30 P.M., she went to Chaupayari, where Rinki and Urmila took her. There, Urmila's brother Shambhu and an unknown person, CRLA No. 2276 of 2017 4 who was wearing a mask, met them. These men were already on a red motorcycle at Bamba. Shambhu grabbed her hand, threatened her with a pistol, and made her sit. Urmila and Rinki told her to take him away. Shambhu and An unknown person took her on a motorcycle to the forest, where Shambhu forcibly raped her. Omprakash, a villager, came to deliver food at 9-10 pm and also raped her. In her statement before the court, this witness only stated that Shambhu, along with an unknown person, took her to the forest and that the accused Shambhu raped her; she did not disclose any other details. Further it is submitted that the medical evidence shows that the victim's hymen is torn. This does not confirm rape, making the prosecution's case suspect. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that In the present case, the statements of complainant P.W.-1., victim P.W.-2 and independent witness P.W.-3 Brijesh clearly prove that accused Shambhu along with another unknown person forcibly took the victim to the forest on a motorcycle and Shambhu raped her. She was forcibly raped. These witnesses were cross-examined before the learned trial Court, and some contradictions were evident, which are natural. There are no substantial contradictions in their statements that would cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events. Their statements are completely truthful, reliable, and natural. Thus, the evidence presented by the prosecution substantiates beyond reasonable doubt the charges against accused Shambhu under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 7. Analysis The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant appears to be untrue, as he could not point out any evidence in support of his arguments, nor is there any evidence on record that would lead to the conclusion that the CRLA No. 2276 of 2017 5 accused assaulted the complainant while siding with his brother-in-law, Omprakash. The record contains no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused. It appears that the above statement has been fabricated in self-defense. It is true that there are contradictions between the victim's statements to the Police and the Magistrate. However, in each statement, she stated that accused Shambhu and another unknown person took her to the forest and raped her. In the present case, only accused Shambhu was tried, so her contradictory statements do not raise any doubt regarding the crime committed by Shambhu. Furthermore, In the absence of medical evidence, it cannot be said that the victim was not forcibly taken to the forest by the accused Shambhu and raped. The above facts are well established by the prosecution's evidence. No other argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Conclusion :- Considering the overall circumstances and submission of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and after going through the evidence and lower court record, I am unable to persuade myself in taking a different opinion from that of learned trial court. The learned trial court was fully justified in convicting the accused-respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the learned trial court. Accordingly, the same is hereby upheld. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. March 25, 2026 Dev CRLA No. 2276 of 2017 6 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad