HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1021 of 2016 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2), Cr.P.C. has been moved by the accused-appellant challenging the judgment and order 30.06.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Raebareli in Session Trial No. 106 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 714 of 2014, under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station - Sareni, District - Raebareli, convicting and sentencing the appellant for one year imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Sections 354 IPC and for one year imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 506 IPC, with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under. An FIR (Ex.Ka.4), based on the written report, registered as Case Crime No. 714 of 2014, under Sections 376, 323, 506 IPC was lodged on 09.12.2014. After lodging of FIR, the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O."), investigated the matter. During investigation, the I.O. prepared Site Plan (Ex.Ka.6) and also the victim was medically examined. The concerned doctor prepared the medico-legal report of the victim as Ex.Ka.2 and thereafter, supplementary medico-legal report was prepared as Ex.Ka.3. Thereafter, the I.O., after completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.9) along with relevant documents including the documents referred herein- before as also the age certificate (Ex.Ka.7) issued by Chief Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Govt. Advocate Vipin Kumar Yadav .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) Medical Officer, and X-Ray Report (Ex.Ka.8). 4. The charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant under Section 376, 354, 506 IPC on which cognizance was taken and thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Session Trial No. 106 of 2015. 5. The trial Court on 15.11-2015 framed the charges against the accused- appellant under Sections 376, 354, 506 IPC. The charges, that were framed, were denied by the accused-appellant who claimed trial. 6. Prosecution to establish its case examined victim Nisha Devi (P.W.1), Surendra (P.W.2), Ram Kishore alias Kishori (P.W.3) and Dr. Tauhida (P.W.4). 7. The trial Court, upon considering the material available on record, including the statement of the witnesses of the prosecution and the defense, for the purposes of conclusion in the matter, framed the following question. "१. क्या अिभयुक्त द्वारा िदनाँक ०९.१२.२०१४ को समय करीब १२०० बजे िदन स्थान बहद् ग्राम पूरे ठकु राइन के पूरब ओर िस्थत जंगल थाना सरेनी िजला रायबरेली में वािदनी/पीिड़ता कु ० िनशा देवी के साथ उसकी इच्छा एवं सम्मित के िबना जबरदस्ती बलात्संग िकया गया ? तथा क्या अिभयुक्त ने उक्त घटना क्रम के दौरान पीिड़ता को तमाचा-थप्पड़ों से मारकर स्वेच्छा उपहित कािरत की व जान से मारने की धमकी भी िदया ?" 8. It is a case related to offense under Section 376 IPC. As such, the statement of the victim, medico-legal report(s) and the statement of doctor are relevant. And therefore, this Court first took note of the statement of P.W.1. 9. According to the statement of P.W.1 in examination-in-chief, in the noon of 01.12.2014, the accused-appellant caught hold the victim (P.W.1) and used force also slapped the victim and also committed the rape with her. 10. Dr. Tauhida (P.W.4) proved the medico-legal report as also the supplementary medico-legal report and this witness on oath before the trial Court stated that definite opinion regarding rape can not be given. 11. On the date of the alleged incident, the victim was about nineteen years old. 12. From a conjoint reading of the statement of Dr. Tauhida (P.W.4) and the medico-legal report as also supplementary medico-legal report it is apparent that upon due examination, the doctor concerned found no injury over the body of the victim. CRLA No. 1021 of 2016 2 13. The trial Court considered the version of the victim (P.W.1) including what she stated during her cross-examination, according to which, the accused-appellant caught hold the hand of the victim and also slapped her but the rape was not committed by accused-appellant. 14. Upon due consideration of the prosecution case, as aforesaid, the trial court concluded that offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out and offence under Section 354 IPC is made out. 15. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section(s) 354 and 506 IPC, detailed in para 2 of this judgment. 16. Impeaching the impugned judgment and order, learned counsel for the appellant stated that trial Court committed error of law and fact both in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 354 IPC. 17. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the appeal. He submitted that there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the court below. Keeping in view the evidence on record, accused-appellants have been rightly convicted, as would appear from the statement of the victim itself, who leveled allegations to attract offence under Section 354 IPC as also to attract under Section 506 IPC. 18. It would be apt to indicate that on the previous date i.e. 12.09.2025, learned AGA was directed to seek instructions in the matter with regard to the period of incarceration of the accused appellant. 19. Today, learned AGA placed the letter dated 13.09.2025 of Superintendent of District Jail, Unnao, before this Court, which is taken on record. 20. The letter dated 13.09.2025 indicates that the fine i.e. Rs.2,000/- has already been deposited, by the accused-appellant. The same also indicates that the accused-appellant has already undergone a period of 1 year, 6 months, 14 days, with effects from 17.12.2014 to 30.06.2016. 21. Record of this appeal also indicates that the accused-appellant was apprehended and sent to jail, in terms of order of this court dated 05.03.2019, which was passed on account of non-appearance of Shri Direndra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant before this Court, and he is in jail since 20.08.2025. 22. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records. CRLA No. 1021 of 2016 3 23. It is a settled principle of law that primacy to the statement of the victim should be given. The statement of the victim is intact for attracting the offense under Sections 354, 506 IPC. 24. Keeping view the aforesaid, the judgment and order of the trial Court is affirmed and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 25. However, as the accused-appellant/Vipin Kumar Yadav has already undergone the period of sentence awarded by the trial Court i.e. one year and the fine has already been deposited, he is directed to be released forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case. 26. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to Superintendent of District Jail, Unnao for compliance forthwith. 27. Office is directed to send back the trial Court record along with copy of this judgment. September 15, 2025 Mohit Singh/- CRLA No. 1021 of 2016 4 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench