Allahabad High Court

VEERPAL CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: SANDEEP CHAUDHARY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The High Court quashed the charge‑sheet and the Special Judge’s order, holding that the evidence was inconsistent and unreliable.

Summary

The appellants Veerpal Chaudhary and Lokesh Chaudhary appealed against a charge-sheet and order of a Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The victim’s FIR alleged that Veerpal assaulted and molested her in a forest, while later statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita added that Lokesh also participated. The court noted material inconsistencies between the FIR and the victim’s subsequent statements, and found that independent witnesses described the incident as a dispute over crop damage rather than a caste‑based molestation. Considering these contradictions and the lack of corroboration, the High Court held that the prosecution’s case was unreliable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the charge‑sheet and the Special Judge’s order were set aside, and the proceedings against the appellants were quashed.

Issues considered

Whether the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements under the FIR and Sections 180/183 of the BNSS render the prosecution case unreliable.
Whether the allegations constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Whether the charge‑sheet and the Special Judge’s order should be set aside and the proceedings quashed.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 180, 183, 351(2), 352, 74
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(va)

Subjects

SC/ST Act
false FIR
inconsistent statements
quash of proceedings
criminal appeal
evidence reliability
caste discrimination

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1813 of 2026

Veerpal Chaudhary And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akshay Mishra, Zeeshan Mazhar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Subhash Chand

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

1. Heard Sri Akshay Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Pramod
Kumar, holding brief of Sri Subhash Chand, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2 and Sri Shubham Tandon, learned State Law Officer for the
State as also perused the record.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to allow
present appeal and set aside the Charge-sheet dated 21.02.2025 and
impugned order dated 02.05.2025 in Session Trial No. 2664 of 2025
(Veerpal and Another vs. State) passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)
Aligarh arising out of Case Crime No. 430 of 2024, under sections 74,
115(2), 351(2) 352 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police
Station Chharra, District Aligarh.

3. Respondent/ victim stated in FIR that on 02.12.2024 at about 12:00 noon,
she had gone to the forest to collect fodder for her animals.She has alleged
that she saw appellant Veerpal Chaudhary, consuming alcohol at some
distance. After she had tied the fodder and was about to leave, Veerpal came
from behind, threw her bundle of fodder, caught hold of her hand, and
started misbehaving with her. When she protested, he assaulted her.She has
further stated that when she raised alarm, Reena Devi, wife of Sonu, and
other persons came there and tried to save her. It is alleged that Veerpal also
assaulted Reena Devi. In the meantime, appellant Lokesh Chaudhary,
brother of Veerpal, reached the spot. Both of them allegedly abused the
informant and Reena Devi in filthy language,used casteist slurs and
misbehaved with them, and also extended threats that if they disclosed the
incident to anyone, they would kill them and their family members.
CRLA No. 1813 of 2026
2

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR was lodged by
the victim herself; however, she has made material improvements in her
statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. It is submitted that she has
stated that appellant Lokesh came running towards her and pushed her,
which was not stated in the FIR.It is further submitted that in the FIR, the
victim has stated that Rina arrived at the spot after hearing her screams, and
she has stated the same fact before the Investigating Officer. However, in her
statement under Section 183 BNSS, she has claimed that Rina was present
with her at the time of the incident.It is also submitted that Rina has not
corroborated the version of the victim and has stated that one Rajwati was
objecting to them for destroying her crops. It is thus submitted that such
inconsistencies in the statements of the victim create serious doubt regarding
the allegations against the appellants.

5. Learned State Law Officer and Learned Counsel for informant submitted
that statement of victim is consistent on the issue of molestation committed
against her. She stated that both appellants assaulted, abused and molested
her. Minor inconsistency occurring in statements of victim and witnesses is
not sufficient to discard the prosecution version.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The FIR was lodged by the victim herself. In the FIR, the allegation of
molestation is against appellant Veerpal, and the role of appellant Lokesh is
limited to the fact that he came after the incident, abused the victim and
Rina, and misbehaved with them.

8. However, in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the victim
has changed her version and stated that appellant Lokesh also assaulted and
molested her, and that thereafter Veerpal came and committed similar acts.
This is clearly different from what was stated in the FIR.

9. The statement of Renu shows that the dispute started when Rajwati
objected to damage to her crops, after which a quarrel took place. The
independent witnesses, namely Jahid, Dataram, Krishna Gopal, and
Devendra, have also stated that the incident happened due to a dispute
between Rajwati and the women of the Jatav community, including the
victim, regarding damage to the ridge and fencing of the field. These
witnesses have denied the allegations of molestation and have stated that
only a quarrel took place between the women of both sides.

10. From the above, it appears that the incident started from a dispute and
led to a sudden quarrel between the parties. The allegations made by the
victim appear to be exaggerated, and there are clear inconsistencies in her
CRLA No. 1813 of 2026
3

statements.

11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned charge-sheet
dated 21.02.2025 as well as the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 passed by
the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh, in Session Trial No. 2664 of 2025
(Veerpal and Another vs. State), arising out of Case Crime No. 430 of 2024,
are hereby set aside. Consequently, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid
case against the appellants stand quashed.

March 19, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…