Allahabad High Court
PRAVEEN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The order framing charges against the revisionist was lawful and the criminal revision was dismissed.
Summary
Praveen Kumar appealed a criminal revision challenging the order that framed charges against him under IPC sections 376D, 354, 506, POCSO Act sections 5 and 6, and SC/ST Act section 3(ii)(v). The revisionist argued that the victim was a consenting adult, the FIR was filed three days after the incident, and there was no injury or medical evidence, contending that he was falsely implicated. The State contended that the FIR named him as the main accused, the investigation was completed, and the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence. The court examined the age discrepancy in the victim’s statements and the school mark‑sheet, concluding that the question of consent and age were factual matters for the trial court. Finding no illegality in the charge‑framing order, the court dismissed the revision.
Issues considered
- Whether the order framing charges against Praveen Kumar under IPC, POCSO and SC/ST Act is legally valid.
- Whether the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, affecting the applicability of the POCSO Act.
- Whether the alleged consent of the victim can bar liability under the charged offences.
- Whether the three‑day delay in filing the FIR renders the charge sheet infirm.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 354, 376D, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5, 6
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(ii)(v)
Subjects
- criminal law
- rape of minor
- POCSO
- consent
- charge framing
- revision
- SC/ST Act
- sexual offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4147 of 2024
Praveen Kumar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : A.L.Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sanjay Pathak
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State
and the learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated
22.5.2024, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 380 of 2024 (State Vs. Praveen Kumar and
others), under Section 376D, 354, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO
Act and under Section 3(ii) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Madrak,
District Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the impugned order
dated 22.5.2024, whereby the charges has been framed against the
revisionist/Praveen Kumar under Sections 376D, 354, 506 IPC and
Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and under Section 3(ii) (v) SC/ST Act.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist
has not committed any offence. He has falsely been implicated in the said
case. The victim is a consenting party and the FIR has been lodged three
days delay. From the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C,
she told her age 19 years, but in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C,
the victim assigned her age 17 and half years. There is no injury and
medical report. As per High School mark-sheet, the date of birth of the
victim is 27.5.2006, whereas the date of incident is 15.1.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he has not
CRLR No. 4147 of 2024
2
committed any offence especially under Section 376D IPC. The
impugned order is liable to be set aside and the criminal revision is
entitled to be allowed.
6. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has
submitted that the accused/revisionist is named in the FIR. The charge
sheet has been filed against him and he is involved in the said offence
since very beginning and the evidence are against him. Thus, the criminal
revision is liable to be dismissed.
7. The incident is dated 15.1.2024, whereas the FIR has been lodged on
18.1.2024 under 376D, 354, 506 IPC. It has been lodged against the
revisionist-Praveen Kumar and two unknown friends, hence the
revisionist is the main accused in said case as per contents of the FIR
since very inception. A detail investigation took place and charge sheet
has been filed against the revisionist under 376D, 354, 506 IPC and
Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and under Section 3(ii) (v) SC/ST Act,
whereas charge sheet has been filed against other co-accued person Ajay
Raj and Ravi Kumar, under Section 376D, 354, 506 IPC and 5/6 of
POCSO Act.
8. The charges are already framed against the accused. Prima facie, age of
the victim was of minor at the time of incident. The submission regarding
consenting party and age of the victim, these all are question of fact which
could be decided by the trial court after collecting evidence by the
prosecution as well as defence. The specific role of the revisionist has
been assigned in the FIR and charge sheet has been filed and trial has also
began after framing of charge against the revisionist.
9. In view thereof, prima facie, there is no apparent illegality in the
impugned order dated 22.5.2024. The criminal revision has no legal force
and it is liable to be dismissed.
10. The criminal revision is, therefore, dismissed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
February 26, 2026
sfa/
Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…