RAMESHversusSTATE

                                         Judgement reserved on 04.08.2026

                                        Judgement delivered on 16.09.2026

                                                                      A. F. R.


         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 525 of 1988

Ramesh
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : Harish Chandra, Pawan Kumar Shukla,
                                   Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : A.G.A., Indra Narayan

Court No. - 78
                      HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the
informant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

2. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated
09.03.1988, passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, by which the
appellants, namely Ramesh and Kalu were convicted under Section 376 IPC
and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
ten years.

3. The prosecution story, as briefly disclosed in the written report Ext. Ka 1,
submitted by Khami at P.S. Noida on 02.08.1985, at 06.10 P.M. is to the
effect that, his wife Smt. Munni and his sister-in-law (bhabhi), Smt. Roshani
had gone to bring fodder from their field on 02.08.1985, at about 10 A.M.
Smt. Roshani was accompanying her, while Smt. Munni was going just
behind her. It is said that, as soon as, Smt. Munni reached near the maize
field of PW3 Ram Kumar, the accused, who were hidden in the said field,
came out of the field and they caught hold of Smt. Munni and dragged her to
the field. They also gagged her mouth, while dragging her to the field.
Thereafter, they raped her one by one. It is also stated that, when one of the
accused committed rape, the other accused caught hold of the prosecutrix
                                                         CRLA No. 525 of 1988
                               2

Smt. Munni. First of all accused Kalu committed rape and thereafter Ramesh
committed rape upon her. When Ramesh was committing rape, Smt. Munni
Devi cried, as a result of which, Smt. Roshani, Ram Kumar and Tej Singh
arrived there and they witnessed the occurrence and they became successful
in apprehending the accused Ramesh on the spot. The other accused, Kalu,
however, made his escape good. The arrested accused Ramesh was taken to
the village along with the prosecutrix and the other witness Khami, the
husband of the prosecutrix, after knowing the facts of the incident from his
wife Smt. Munni and other witnesses, got prepared the report through
Dharambir Singh. Thereafter, he took his wife Smt. Munni Devi and the
arrested accused Ramesh with the help of the prosecution witnesses to the
police station and there he submitted written report and handed over the
accused Ramesh to the police station. A case under section 376 IPC was
registered against both the accused. The distance between the police station
and the place of occurrence, is about four and half Kms. The investigation of
the case was entrusted to S. I. Ganesh Prasad Notiyal. P.W. 6. On
02.08.1985, he recorded the statement of Head Mohaarir Sohan Pal Singh,
Complainant Khami and Smt. Munni Devi. He also recorded the statement
of accused Ramesh on the same day at the police station. Thereafter, he went
to village Bahallolpur along with constable in search of the other accused
Kalu, but he could not apprehend Kalu, as he was not available in the
village. On the next day, he recorded statement of Smt. Roshani Devi and
thereafter visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan marked
as Ext. Ka 4. On 07.08.1985, he recorded the statement of Ram Kumar. On
13.10.1985 accused Kalu surrendered before the court and thereafter he
proceeded on leave and the investigation of the case was completed by S.O.
Jagbir Singh, who submitted charge sheet (Ex. Ka 5) against both the
accused.

4. Ramesh and Kalu, resident of village Bahallolpur, P.S. Noida, District
Ghaziabad, have been committed to the Court of Sessions by IVth
Additional Munsif / Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide his order dt.
09.10.1985 to face trial under Section 376 IPC, P.S. Noida, District
Ghaziabad.

5. The charge against accused is that on, 02.08.1985 at about 10 A. M. in the
maize field of Ram Kumar situated in village Bahallolpur, P.S Noida Sector-
24, the accused persons committed rape upon Smt. Munni W/o Khami P.W.
1.

6. Charge under section 376 IPC was framed against both the accused by the
then IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, to which both the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They also denied the prosecution
                                                          CRLA No. 525 of 1988
                                3

allegations in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. and attributed their
false implication in this case on account of enmity. Ramesh has further
stated that, he was arrested from his residence and was assaulted and
thereafter was falsely implicated in this case. None of the accused adduced
any evidence in defence.

7. The prosecution examined Khami P.W. 1, Smt. Munni Devi P.W. 2, Ram
Kumar P.W. 3, Smt. Roshani Devi P.W. 4, H.C. Sohan Pal Singh P.W. 5,
Ganesh Prasad Notiyal P.W. 6, Dr. P.K. Malhotra P.W. 7 and lady Dr. Mrs.
A. Prasad P.W. 8 in support of the prosecution case.

8. The husband of the prosecutrix Smt. Munni Devi, P.W. 1 Khami, who is
the complainant of this case, has submitted written report (Ext. Ka 1) at the
police station and proved the same.

9. The prosecutrix P.W. 2 Smt. Munni Devi has given details, as to how she
was raped by both the accused. She has also proved the petikot (Ext.1),
which she was wearing at the time of occurrence.

10. P.W. 3 Ram Kumar, who is said to be one of the eye witnesses of the
occurrence, deposed, that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in his
maize field, was going to his field at the time of occurrence and when he
reached near the field, he heard the cries of some woman and when he
reached to the field, he saw accused Ramesh committing rape upon Smt.
Munni Devi, while accused Kalu was holding her. He also apprehended
accused Ramesh on the spot with the help of other persons.

11. PW 4, Smt. Roshani Devi is also another witness of fact. She has also
witnessed Ramesh, committing rape upon Smt. Munni, who is sister-in-law
(Bhabhi) of PW 2. She has also corroborated the prosecution story that
accused Ramesh was apprehended on the spot and other accused Kalu ran
away from the spot.

12. PW 5 Head Constable Sohan Pal, who is the scribe of F. I .R. (Ext. Ka
2), which he has registered on the basis of written report Ext. Ka 1. He also
made necessary entries in the G.D. regarding the registration of the case and
proved its copy (Ext. Ka 3).

13. P. W. 6 S. I. Ganesh Prasad Notiyal is the Investigating Officer of this
case. His evidence has already been discussed above during the narration of
the facts of the case. P. W. 7 Dr. P.K. Malhotra, medically examined accused
Ramesh and proved the injury report (Ext. Ka 6).

14. P. W. 8 Dr. Mrs. Aruna Prasad, who examined the prosecutrix Smt.
                                                          CRLA No. 525 of 1988
                               4

Munni Devi, proved her medical report.

15. P. W. 7 Dr. P. K. Malhotra also medically examined apprehended
accused Ramesh Chand on 03.08.1985 at 00.30 ?.?. and he noted following
seven injuries on him-

     (i) Abrasion of 4 cm. x 3cm, on the posterior medial aspect of it,
     side of fore arm 9 m. above wrist joint, with interception.

     (ii) Abrasion of 3 cm. x 1 cm. on the posterior medial aspect of
     left fore arm 6 and a half cm above to wrist joint horizontal
     directive.

     (iii) Contusion of 6 cm. x 1 cm. on the posterior aspect of left
     thigh, red colour and horizontal direction and 20 cm. above to
     popliteal fossa.

     (iv) Contusion of 9 cm. x 1 and a half cm. the posterior aspect of
     lower third left thigh, red colour and 15 cm. below to injury No. 3
     with horizontal direction.

     (v) Contusion of 6 cm. x 1 and a half cm. on the posterior aspect
     of left popliteal fossa, red colour.

     (vi) Contusion of 9 cm. x 2 cm. on posterior aspect of Rt. Leg,
     red colour.

     (vii) Contusion of 13 cm. x 2 cm. on the upper posterior of Rt. leg
     on the posterior aspect red in colour and with horizontal direction
     6 cm. above to injury No. 6.

No injury was found on his penis. Injury Nos. 3 to 7 were alleged to have
been caused by a blunt object, while the first two injuries were caused by
friction / abrasion.

16. During investigation, the petikot of Smt. Munni Devi, Vaginal slide
prepared from the vaginal swab of Smt. Munni Devi and underwear
belonging to accused Ramesh, were sent to chemical examiner and semen
stains were found on the petikot belonging to Smt. Munni Devi.

17. In the instant case, it is alleged by the prosecution that, the accused
Ramesh and Kalu committed rape upon Smt. Munni on 02.08.1985 at about
10 A. M. in the maize field of Ram Kumar situated in village Bahallolpur, P.
S. Noida. The accused, on the other hand, denied the prosecution allegations
and contended, that a false and fabricated case has been concocted against
                                                           CRLA No. 525 of 1988
                                5

them. So the main question to be determined in this case is, as to whether,
the accused committed rape upon Smt. Munni, in the manner, as alleged by
the prosecution.

18. Smt. Roshani Devi P.W. 4 has stated that, she was going to bring fodder
along with her Bhabhi Smt. Munni Devi. She was walking a little ahead of
Smt. Munni Devi and when she reached near the field of Ram Kumar, she
saw that Smt. Munni Devi was not coming behind her. After some time, she
heard the cries of Munni Devi from inside the field of Ram Kumar, she went
there, along with other witnesses Ram Kumar and Tejpal and there she
witnessed the occurrence.

19. The accused Ramesh, who was apprehended on the spot, was medically
examined by P. W. 7 Dr. P. K. Malhotra on 03.08.1985 at 10.30 A. M. and
seven injuries were found on his person. The first two injuries are abrasions;
one on the right side and the other, on the left side of his forearms, who
opined that the abrasions could be caused at the time of the commission of
the rape in the maize field.

20. The prosecution story has been assailed on several grounds by the
defence.

21. Learned counsel for the appellants / accused has submitted that neither
there was any injury on the person of Smt. Munni Devi nor on her private
part and therefore, the prosecution case is not corroborated by any medical
evidence.

22. In the instant case, it is undisputed that Smt. Munni Devi was habitual to
sexual intercourse, being a married woman.

23. It has been next argued by learned counsel for the appellants that, the
F.I.R. of the case has been lodged with undue delay and therefore, the
prosecution case should be looked with doubt.

24. Learned counsel for the appellants / accused submitted that the
occurrence took place at about 10 AM in the jungle of Bahallolpur and
thereafter the prosecutrix was brought home by the prosecution witnesses
and then she was taken to the police station on foot. The report of the
occurrence has been lodged at 06.10 P.M on that the same day or the next
very day, is not clear from the evidence on record. The distance between the
police station is about four and half kms. from the place of occurrence.

25. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that, the F.I.R. of this
case has been lodged after the arrival of the police in the village and
                                                           CRLA No. 525 of 1988
                                6

therefore, it is doubtful.

26. This argument has been advanced on the basis of the statement of Smt.
Munni Devi in her cross- examination, wherein she has stated that the police
arrived in the village in the day hours on the date of occurrence and
thereafter she was taken to the police station.

27. It is true that, the police visited the place of occurrence in the noon on
the next day of the occurrence, as recorded in the testimony of the
Investigating Officer and other witnesses, on this basis it is stated that, the
F.I.R. of this case is a suspicious document or the police visited the place of
occurrence prior to the lodging of the F. I. R.

28. Learned counsel, for the appellants / accused lastly submitted that there
are major discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses.

29. Learned counsel for the appellants / accused submitted that, the
prosecutrix got misplaced on two vital counts and these are highly relevant
and have an impact on the veracity and correctness of the offence, allegedly
committed by the appellants / accused. PW 2 prosecutrix stated that, at first,
Ramesh committed the act of rape, while Kalu was holding her hands, while
taking a different stand, PW2, the prosecutrix stated that, at first, Kalu
committed the offence, while Ramesh was holding her hands. PW2, the
prosecutrix has deliberately stated that, Kalu committed the act first and then
Ramesh did it in second turn, for the reason that, by the time PW 3 Ram
Kumar, arrived, he has allegedly seen Ramesh Kumar committing the
offence, while Kalu was holding her hands. Secondly, PW4 also stated that,
Ramesh was committing the offence and Kalu was holding her hands. If the
statements of PW2, PW3 and PW4 are read together, then the statements
have far reaching implications, resultantly leading to the conclusion and
proving that, a false story has been concocted and the appellants have falsely
been implicated.

30. Learned counsel for the appellants / accused also submitted that, if Kalu
has committed rape first, then no hue and cry was made by the prosecutrix /
victim and the offence was allegedly over. It was only when Ramesh was
committing the offence, the prosecutrix made hue and cry. However, none of
the witnesses saw that Kalu was committing offence and only the false
allegation of holding the hands of victim has been attributed to Kalu. If such
an instance has taken place with a victim, she cannot forget as to, who
committed the offence first. As per the version of F. I. R., Kalu is alleged to
have committed the act first and it was the most earliest occasion that, the
                                                             CRLA No. 525 of 1988
                                  7

victim could remember, as to who committed the act first and would have
raised hue and cry, but she therefore, changed her stand during the course of
trial for the reason, as stated above in the preceding paragraph.

31. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused further submitted that, when
two ladies are accompanying each other, they normally continue talking and
speak to each other, while moving in the field, as it was near the field, then if
one escapes, the other will take the notice of, who disappeared immediately.
Further, it cannot be a case that, one lady out of two, continues to walk for a
long distance and could not see, as to what has happened to the other lady
(victim), who was accompanying her continuously. Moreover, by the time
both the appellants grabbed the victim PW2, she did not make any hue and
cry till the offence was committed by Kalu, as the victim was having
sufficient occasion and time immediately, when the appellants tried to drag
her to the maize field and if that was so, then another witness PW4, i. e.
Roshani Devi, who was accompanying the victim, did not make any hue and
cry that, the appellants/accused have dragged the prosecutrix / victim to the
maize field and they were likely to commit any wrong act, such as rape with
the victim PW2. Moreover, PW4 did not follow both the appellants /
accused, as the maize crop is not very thick and measuring in height, so that
the hue and cry could not be heard or seen from nearby. It is interesting to
note that, PW 3 Ram Kumar, when he reached near his field, then he heard
the cry of the woman, whereas PW 4 was already there and she did not hear
any hue and cry of the victim. It is also interesting to note that, if a person is
committing rape, he cannot be seen committing the offence from outside the
field, unless the person reaches near the spot of incident. Since PW3 and
PW4 have allegedly seen the committing of the offence at the hands of
Ramesh, it is nowhere have come on record that, both have seen together,
while Ramesh was committing the offence or from how far and what
distance, PW3 and PW4 Ram Kumar and Roshani Devi have seen the
incident taking place inside the maize field. The story appears to be
concocted, as there is no consistency of the witnesses particularly, PW3 and
PW4, as to where both have seen the commission of offence together, or
separately or at the same time inside the maize field or outside the field or
from what distance, and have merely stated that, PW3 has seen the
commission of offence and PW4 has also stated that, she has seen the
offence being committed with the victim.

32. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused has also submitted that, the
appellants have taken away the victim to the police station and thereafter the
F.I.R. was lodged. If that was so, then victim PW2 has herself stated that,
she was taken to the police station and thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged.
                                                            CRLA No. 525 of 1988
                                 8

PW2, victim further stated that, she was taken by the police the very next
day of the incident. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that, if the victim was taken to the police station the next day, then
the FIR was ante-dated and if she was not taken to the police station, then
police arrived on the very same day of the incident, as per the statement of
the victim herself. Therefore, both the statements given by the victim cannot
be truthful and therefore, are unbelievable. Had the victim gone to the police
station, then it was the next day and if it was on the same day of the incident,
then victim has gone on the same day with the police.

33. The third argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants /
accused is that, another witness Tej Singh has also seen the incident, but he
was not produced as a witness for the reason that, he was treated to be made
and planted witness, as Tej Singh was not present at the time of the
commission of the offence. Though presuming, but not admitting, that, Tej
Singh was instrumental in catching hold the accused Ramesh, then at least
Tej Singh would have been produced to prove that, he was the one, who
helped in catching hold of accused Ramesh, but if Tej Singh was not
produced to prove the fact of catching hold of Ramesh, then how and in
what circumstances PW 3 Ram Kumar and PW 4 Roshani Devi caught hold
of accused/ appellant Ramesh, as he was confined in the field, as one male
and one female cannot be presumed to catch hold of a person and bringing
him back to the village, as if during the scuffle, Ramesh would have tried to
get rid of Ram Kumar and Roshani Devi and during the struggle of the three,
accused Ramesh, witness Ram Kumar and witness Roshani Devi, all of them
would have sustained some injuries, but in the instance, while Ramesh was
caught hold by Ram Kumar and Roshani Devi, neither of them sustained
even any minor injury, but Ramesh has sustained seven injuries during the
scuffle, meaning thereby only one accused sustained seven injuries and none
other, which demonstrates that Ramesh was assaulted by a group of several
persons with some blunt weapon and that is why accused/appellant Ramesh
sustained seven injuries.

34. It is not the case of the prosecution that, while Ramesh was committing
the offence, the victim would have struggled and she would have tried her
best to save her from his clutches and during the process, she would have
caused injuries upon the person of accused/appellant Ramesh and thereby
Ramesh could not have sustained injuries at the hands of the victim PW2.

35. These sequence of incident and the injuries sustained by the accused /
appellant Ramesh falsify the story of the commission of the offence at the
hands of Ramesh and Kalu both. It is a matter of record and as suggested by
the medical examination report, which was conducted by P. W. 8 Dr. Aruna
                                                          CRLA No. 525 of 1988
                                9

Prasad that, the victim/prosecutrix did not sustain any external injury on the
person or any internal injury on her private part, which shows that, there was
no struggle, when the offence was being allegedly committed and even if
that was so, it was a consented matter, otherwise some minor injuries were
bound to be noticed or recorded during the commission of the offence of
rape. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that, so far as the
sample of vaginal smear were taken for pathological test, nothing came out
with the fact that, the offence was committed by the appellants and none
other than them, whereas the fact remains that, the prosecutrix/victim was a
married lady and mere presence of semen on her clothes, does not suggest
that, it would have been as a result of the commission of the offence of rape,
but would have been collected during the course, when the husband and wife
would have been busy in the compromising position willingly, as such the
sample of the accused were not taken for testing.

36. Learned counsel also submitted that, the accused Ramesh was assaulted
by a group of persons for wreaking vengeance, as the victim and her
husband were in the business of preparing and making country made liquor.
Learned counsel for appellants/accused persons also submitted that, though,
no witness is required to prove the offence of rape and the testimony of the
prosecutrix is sufficient, but contrarily, if the witnesses were found to be
present there, and they had witnessed the occurrence of the incident, then
their consistency and homogeneity is required to be proved, as far as the
testimony of the prosecutrix and the other witnesses is concerned and
planting mere witness i. e., a witness who has seen the incident, is not
sufficient.

37. Learned counsel for appellants/accused further submitted that, nothing
has been stated that, if the police arrived the next day, as to how and where
the said accused Ramesh was kept in the custody of whom, whether the
witnesses or anybody else and the names of the persons, as to by whom the
accused Ramesh was taken to the police station or handed over to the police,
were not discussed at all and the fact, where accused Ramesh was taken to
the police station or he was handed over to the police in the village or there
has been a quarrel, explicitly shows that, Ramesh has been falsely implicated
in the offence of rape, whereas it was a case of rivalry, wherein the victim
and her husband used to prepare and sell the liquor, which was objected by
Ramesh and Kalu and it was that incident in which, some quarrel took place
between the two parties, in which Ramesh was assaulted and was inflicted
injuries and the said instance of assault was given colour of rape and the
accused persons/appellants were falsely implicated.

38. Learned counsel for the appellants / accused also submitted that, a false
                                                           CRLA No. 525 of 1988
                                10

story has been created to give it colour of the offence of rape, whereas it was
a case of assault and beating the accused/appellant Ramesh, contrarily
accused/appellants have been falsely implicated in the offence of rape. If at
all the offence of rape was not to be proved, none other than the prosecutrix,
then the catching hold of Ramesh at the behest of Ram Kumar, Roshani Devi
and Tej Singh would have been proved categorically and explicitly, which
was not done in the present case and hence, the same vitiates the prosecution
story.

39. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the following
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court :-

     "(I) Rajoo and Ors. vs. State of M.P. (03.12.2008 - SC) :
     MANU/SC/8353/2008, in para 9.

     Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest
     weight and we respectfully agree with them, but at the same time
     they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts
     of every case of sexual assault which comes before the Court.
     It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and
     humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of
     rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the
     accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the
     possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number
     of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the
     broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time
     when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness
     would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants,but there is no
     presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such
     a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or
     exaggeration.

     (ii) Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
     (17.01.2006 - SC) : MANU/SC/0607/2006.

     It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the
     sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring of
     confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the
     prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole
     surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the
     case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the
     solitary evidence of the prosecutrix.
     The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole
     testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable
     and unlikely to happen."

In the case in hand, Dr. Aruna Prasad (PW-8) found zero injuries (external
or internal) on the prosecutrix, even though two men allegedly overpowered,
dragged, and pinned her down in a rough agricultural field.

     "(iii) Tameezuddin vs. State of (NCT) of Delhi (26.08.2009 -
     SC) : MANU/SC/1621/2009, in para 7.
                                                            CRLA No. 525 of 1988
                                11

     It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix
     must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this
     evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and
     belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which
     govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter.We are
     of the opinion that story is indeed improbable.

     (iv) Santosh Prasad vs. The State of Bihar (14.02.2020 - SC) :
     MANU/SC/0192/2020

     5.4.2. In the case of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu (supra), this Court
     had an occasion to consider who can be said to be a "sterling
     witness". In paragraph 22, it is observed and held as under:
     22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of
     a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore,
     be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness
     should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any
     hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the
     witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the
     truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would
     be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right
     from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the
     witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the
     court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the
     prosecution qua the Accused. There should not be any
     prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should
     be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length
     and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance
     should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence,
     the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version
     should have co-relation with each and every one of other
     supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons
     used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and
     the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match
     with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it
     should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial
     evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain
     of circumstances to hold the Accused guilty of the offence alleged
     against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the
     above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can
     it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness"
     whose version can be accepted by the court without any
     corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To
     be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core
     spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other
     attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material
     objects should match the said version in material particulars in
     order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core
     version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the
     offender guilty of the charge alleged."

40. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant
have submitted that the prosecutrix was forced to sexual inter-course under
pressure by the accused persons, is clear from the evidence on the record.
When one of the accused was committing rape, she was caught by the other
accused, who pinned her down on the ground and gagged her mouth. Thus,
she succumbed to the pressure and surrendered herself to the accused
                                                                                               CRLA No. 525 of 1988
                                                                    12

                                    persons. In such circumstances, it was not necessary that she would sustain
                                    injuries on her person or on her private part.

                                    41. The occurrence took place at about 10 A.M. in the jungle of Bahallolpur
                                    and thereafter the prosecutrix was brought home by the prosecution
                                    witnesses and then she was taken to the police station on foot. The report of
                                    the occurrence has been lodged on that very day at 06.10 P.M. The distance
                                    between the police station is about four and half kms. from the place of
                                    occurrence. In such cases, the prestige of the family members is on stake and
                                    therefore the family members of the prosecutrix would think hundred times
                                    to lodge a report and consequently it cannot be said that, the report was
                                    lodged with delay.

                                    42. Having considered the rival contentions and the facts, evidence and
                                    entire material, a fair conclusion can be drawn that, the prosecution has
                                    failed to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, as such there are
                                    inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses, the manner in which, the
                                    beginning of catching hold of the victim, which she was moving along with
                                    another witness, the sequence of events, testimony of the witnesses produced
                                    and not producing another important witness, namely Tej Singh, as narrated
                                    in the preceding paragraphs, the present appeal is liable to be allowed.

                                    43. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Court finds that the prosecution
                                    has failed to prove its case against the accused/appellants beyond all
                                    reasonable doubts.

                                    44. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The appellants are
                                    acquitted of all the charges. The judgement and order dated 09.03.1988,
                                    passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, by which the appellants,
                                    namely Ramesh and Kalu were convicted under Section 376 IPC in S. T. No.
                                    351 of 1985 is hereby set aside. The appeal against appellant no. 1 / co-
                                    accused Ramesh stands abated, as he died on 09.10.2025, as per the death
                                    certificate available on record. Since appellant No. 2 Kalu is already on bail,
                                    his personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

                                    45. A copy of this judgement shall be sent to the concerned Trial Court for
                                    further compliance and reference.
                                    September 16, 2026
                                    HR

                                                                                                (Harvir Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
HEMANT RANJAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad