Allahabad High Court

SHAMBHUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 24 March 2026
Bench: VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL

Holding

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution evidence sufficient despite minor inconsistencies in the victim’s statements.

Summary

The appellant Shambhu was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for kidnapping, assault, and rape of a 15‑year‑old girl under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution presented the victim’s testimony, eyewitness accounts, medical examination reports and a charge‑sheet, while the defence argued that the victim’s statements were inconsistent and that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove rape. The appellate court examined whether the contradictions in the victim’s statements created reasonable doubt and whether the medical findings were essential to sustain the conviction. It held that the inconsistencies were minor, the core allegation of forcible abduction and rape by the accused was clearly established, and the trial court had not erred in its findings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the contradictions in the victim’s statements under Section 164 CrPC create reasonable doubt sufficient to overturn the conviction.
Whether the medical evidence of a torn hymen is necessary to prove rape under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of the evidence to convict under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164, 374(2)
Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366, 376
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

kidnapping
rape
child sexual offence
evidence inconsistency
conviction upheld
IPC
POCSO Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2276 of 2017

Shambhu
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pankaj Kushwaha, Suresh Chandra
Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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
CRLA No. 2276 of 2017
2

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
3

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
4

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
5

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
6

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
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
DEV PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…