KULDEEP SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                      JAIL APPEAL No. - 310 of 2025

Kuldeep Sharma
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                    :   Raj Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :   A.G.A.

Court No. - 93
            HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the conviction
and sentence recorded vide judgment and order dated 20.08.2024 passed
by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO
Act (Exclusive Court), Baghpat in Session Trial No. 14 of 2024, arising
out of Case Crime No. 373 of 2023 under Sections 452, 506 I.P.C.
Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station- Doghat, District- Baghpat.

2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. According to the prosecution, on 14 July 2023, when the family
members of the victim were working in the agricultural fields, the accused
forcibly entered the house of the victim and committed rape upon her. It
was further alleged that the accused recorded an obscene video of the
incident. The victim allegedly disclosed the incident to her family
members upon their return. However, due to social stigma and fear of
defamation, no report was lodged with the police at that time. Thereafter,
the accused is alleged to have made telephonic calls to the victim and
threatened to viral the alleged video unless she agreed to marry him. It is
further alleged that on 29 December 2023 at about 7:00 PM, the accused
entered the victim's house armed with a country-made pistol. He allegedly
threatened the victim's mother, Pushpa, and attempted to forcibly drag the
victim out of the house. Upon hearing alarm and commotion, Shailendra
(uncle of the victim) and other persons reached the spot and apprehended
the accused inside the house. The accused was subsequently handed over
                                                         JAPL No. 310 of 2025
                               2


to the police along with the country-made pistol and live cartridges.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses, PW-1 informant
Shailendra, PW- 2 Victim, PW- 3 Pushpa, mother of the victim, PW-4
Saneev Tomar, PW-5 Dr. Rupal Agrawal, PW-6 Dr. Harish Kumar, PW-
7 Constable Updesh Kumar, PW-8 Investigating Officer- Sonveer Singh
Solanki, PW-9 - Dr. Monika.

5. PW-1 informant Shailenra, PW-2 Victim and PW-3 Pushpa, mother of
the victim are examined as witnesses of fact. They supported the FIR
version regarding the occurrence and stated that on the date of alleged
incident, the accused entered their house. He was armed with a country-
made pistol and threatened the mother of the victim and tried to drag the
victim outside her home. Upon hearing the alarm, PW-1 and other
witnesses came on the spot and apprehended the accused and took him to
police station. PW-4 Sanjeev Tomar, produced the S.R. Register of
Chetna Inter College, Kishanpur Baral, Baghpat before the Court and
proved Date of Birth of the victim in accordance with the educational
record, her date of birth according to transfer certificate issued by the
Principal of Chetna Inter College is 01.07.2008. After medical
examination, her age is assessed 17 to 18 years. The Ossification
certificate Ext. Ka-7 is duly proved by P.W.-6- Dr. Harish Kumar.

6. PW-7 Constable Updesh Kumar has proved chik FIR as Ext. Ka-8 and
copy of G.D. as Ext. Ka-9. The recovered country-made pistol was
produced before the Court and proved as material Ext.-1. PW-7 Constable
Updesh Kumar and PW-8 Investigating Officer Sonveer Singh Solanki,
has proved site plan Ext. Ka-11 and charge-sheet Ext. Ka-12. After
hearing the arguments advanced by both parties and considering the
evidences on record. The learned trial court returned the finding of guilt
and convicted the accused for offences under Section 452, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3/25 of Arms Act. However, the prosecution failed to prove the
offences under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, the accused was acquitted for offences under Section
376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
                                                         JAPL No. 310 of 2025
                               3


7. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal
has been filed. It is argued that learned Trial Court has not applied his
judicial mind while passing the impugned order and judgment. The order
has been passed in mechanical manner without properly evaluating the
material evidences available on record, therefore, it is prayed that the
judgment dated 20.08.2024, convicting the appellant for the offences
under Section 452 I.P.C. and 3/25 Arms Act be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that conviction
of the accused appellant is based on appreciation of cogent evidence and
there is no illegality or perversity in the order of learned trial court.

9. A perusal of record transpires that the prosecution case, in brief, was
that the appellant earlier committed forcible sexual assault upon the minor
niece of the informant Shailendra and has allegedly prepared an obscene
video but no FIR was lodged at that time. After about 5 months, on
29.12.2023 at about 7.00 P.M., the accused entered the house of the
victim armed with a country-made pistol, threatened her mother and
attempted to drag the victim outside. On alarm being raised, he was
apprehended by the informant and local persons who came on the spot.
He was taken to the police station and FIR was registered. Upon
investigation of the case, charge-sheet was submitted.

10. During trial, prosecution witness No.1, informant/complainant, PW-2
victim and PW-3 victim's mother Pushpa was examined. The trial court
upon appreciation of evidence found that the prosecution failed to
establish the offence of rape or sexual assault against the accused and
further failed to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age at the
time of occurrence. Accordingly, the accused was acquitted of the
offences under Section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

11. However, the trial court found reliable evidences regarding the
incident dated 19.12.2023, particularly the forcible house trespass,
criminal intimidation, and having possession of country-made pistol Ext.
Ka-10. The recovery memo of the weapon was duly proved by the PW-7
Constable Updesh Kumar. He also proved the recovered country-made
                                                                                             JAPL No. 310 of 2025
                                                                   4


                                    pistol material Ext.-1 to 3 which are witnesses of facts supported the
                                    prosecution case regarding house trespass and threat. The site plan and
                                    charge-sheet were also proved by PW-8 Investigating Officer Sonveer
                                    Singh Solanki. Consequently, the appellant was convicted for offences
                                    under Section 452, 506 I.P.C. and 3/25 of Arms Act.

                                    12. During pendency of appeal, it has been brought to the notice to the
                                    Court that the appellant has already undergone the entire sentence
                                    awarded by the trial court. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the
                                    appellant fairly submits that since the sentence has already been served,
                                    he dose not wish to press the appeal on merits and has no objection if the
                                    conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                    13. The Court has independently examined the record. The finding
                                    recorded by the trial court in respect of offences under Section 452, 506
                                    I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of Arms Act are based on cogent and reliable
                                    evidences. The recovery of weapon has been duly proved and the act of
                                    criminal intimidation while being armed stands established. No
                                    perversity or illegality has been pointed out warranting interference. In
                                    view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
                                    the Conviction and sentence awarded by trial court are hereby affirmed.



                                                                              (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)
                                    February 18, 2026
                                    P. Pandey




Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad