SMT. SHASHIKALA CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 346 of 2026

Smt. Shashikala Chauhan
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Anamika Singh, Soni Gupta, Sunil
                                  Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A., Praveen Kumar Singh

Court No. - 43
                 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
                 HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Order on Criminal Misc. (Leave to Appeal) Application No. 346 of 2026

1. Heard Ms. Anamika Singh, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Praveen
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A-I for the
State and perused the record.

2. The above noted criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and
order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the court of learned Additional Session
Judge/Fast Track Court no. 2, Varanasi in Session Trial case no. 255 of 2023
(State Vs. Ajay Yadav) arising out of Case crime No. 241 of 2022 under
section 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, District- Varanasi, thereby
acquitting the Opposite Party Nos. 2.

3. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the
appellant is a resident of village Bharouli Allah, Police Station- Karindipur,
Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh. Her maternal home is village Banjrawa, Police
Station-Phoolpur, District-Varanasi. Opposite party no. 2, Ajay Yadav son
of Bhagwan Yadav, Resident of complainant's Maternal Home, is a very
arrogant person. A year before complainant's marriage, Ajay Yadav
threatened to kill complainant younger brother, Deepesh (about 10 years old)
and forcibly raped the appellant and made complainant's video film
threatened her to make the video viral. He continued to rape complainant
repeatedly. After complainant's marriage he threatened her to have sex with
him else he would defame her by sending the video to all complainant's
relatives on mobile phone. He repeatedly black mailed her and raped her.
                                                            NC413 No. 346 of 2026
                                 2


4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after registeration on the
case the Investigating Officer examined the various witnesses and collected
the evidence on the basis of which he found the accused-opposite party no. 2
to be guilty of the offences and accordingly he submitted the charge-sheet
dated 23.07.2022 under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur,
District-Varanasi. On aforesaid charge-sheet the learned trial court took
cognizance of offence and on 19.3.2014 framed the charges against accused-
opposite party no. 2 which were denied by the accused opposite party no. 2
and he sought trial. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Smt. Shashikala
Chauhan; P.W. 2, Dr. Anuja Smriti; P.W. 3, Lady Constable, Chanda; P.W.
4, Investigation Officer Inspector, Jagdish Kushwaha.

5. Learned cousnel for the appellant submits that a bare perusal of statements
aforesaid established the offences against accused.That so far as the
statements of P.W. 1 i.e. complainant was started on 16.07.2025 and it was
completed on 04.11.2025. Thus it was taken period of about 4 months by the
Trial Court.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.
Hukum Chand @ Monu (2026) 2019 (16) SCC 759 has categorically held
that minor contradictions cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of the
prosecutrix. In the present case, the learned trial court has committed grave
illegality by rejecting the testimony of the prosecutrix on trivial
discrepancies, which is contrary to settled law. It is settled proposition of law
that the conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, if
it inspires confidence. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh 1996
(2) SCC 384, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the testimony
of the prosecutrix requires no corroboration if it reliable. In the present case,
the prosecutrix has remained consistent throughout in F.I.R., in statement
under section 161 Cr.P.C. and in deposition before the trial court. Yet, the
trial court has discarded her testimony of appellant on trivial contradictions,
which is legally unsustainable. The trial court also erred in giving undue
importance to medical evidence. It is settled law that medical evidence is
only corroborative in nature. In the case of Phool Singh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh 2022 (2) SCC, 74, it has been held that conviction can be
based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix even in the absence of
strong medical evidence.

7. The findings recorded by the learned trial court are perverse and against
                                                                NC413 No. 346 of 2026
                                   3


the weight of evidence. The case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka,
2007 (4) SCC 415 lays dawn that the appellate court can interfere where the
findings of acquittal are perverse or unreasonable. In the present case, the
testimony of prosecutrix is reliable the version is consistent and the
reasoning of acquittal is weak. Thus, the judgment suffers from serious legal
infirmity and deserves to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that trial court has
misread the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the respondents.

9. The appellate Court is usually reluctant to interfere with a judgment
acquitting an accused on the principle that the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused is reinforced by such a judgment. The above principle
has been consistently followed by the Constitutional Court while deciding
appeals against acquittal by way of Article 136 of the Constitution or appeals
filed under Section 378 and 386 (a) Cr.P.C. in State of M.P. Vs. Sharad
Goswami,(2021) 17 SCC 783; State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, (2012) 1
SCC 602, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharastra, (1973) 2 SCC
793.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of
Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 has observed that the High Court must examine
the reasons given by the trial Court for recording their acquittal before
disturbing the same by re-appraising the evidence recorded by the trial court.
For clarity, para 7 is extracted herein below:

     "Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire
     approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently
     wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the
     reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of
     acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an
     independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above
     quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere
     fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be
     legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the
     evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with
     an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire
     approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently
     illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While
     sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellant Court is first required
     to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court
                                                                 NC413 No. 346 of 2026
                                   4

     are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.
     If the appellant Court answers the above question in the negative the
     order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellant
     Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot
     at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then - and
     then only - reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In
     keeping with the above principles we have therefore to first ascertain
     whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not."

11. The Supreme Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P.,
(2016) 4 SCC 357 has observed that an appeal against acquittal has always
been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction.
In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the
order of acquittal only when there is perversity.

12. The Supreme Court in the case Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim,
(2020) 11 SCC 174 has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty
beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If, upon analysis of
evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the
accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the
latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and
acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such
reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might
reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly
instructed in law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found
the accused to be "not guilty". When circumstantial evidence points to the
guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime.
However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this
case, there is no direct evidence of the crime.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2
SCC 808 has observed as under:

     "25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the
     administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible
     on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
     accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
     accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in
     cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought is to established by
     circumstantial evidence."
                                                          NC413 No. 346 of 2026
                                 5


14. The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v. Banabihari
Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the probability of two
views in cases of appeal against acquittal and held that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused, and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused should be adopted.

15. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC
406 has reiterated the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace
proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.

16. In the background of the law discussed herein above, we will examine
the trial court's findings and evidence adduced during the trial by the
witnesses to test the legality and validity of the impugned order.

17. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the
material on record, we find that the appellant was major at the time of the
commission of alleged offence. She has admitted having physical
relationship with opposite party no. 2 since a year before her marriage and
only after her marriage, she has made a complaint against him to save her
honour. She never disclosed to anyone that she was being compelled to enter
into a physical relationship by opposite party no. 2 under the threat of
murder of her brother. No time, place, or details of the first incident and
subsequent incidents were pleaded or proved before the trial court. The trial
court has considered the material on record and found serious contradictions
in the statement of the victim/appellant and has disbelieved her version. We
do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court.

18. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon by the judgment in the case of
Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamilnad, Criminal Appeal No. 2859 of 2025
which has no application to the present case since it was a case of
establishment of physical relationship by the accused on false promise of
marriage and threatening her of uploading her incriminating videos on social
media. In this case no such video was recovered nor any false promise of
marriage was extended to the appellant by the opposite party no. 2.

19. Leave to appeal application is rejected.

Order on Criminal Appeal
                                                                                               NC413 No. 346 of 2026
                                                                     6


                                    20. The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.

                                    21. Office is directed to return the trial court record and not by this judgment
                                    to the trial court.

                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Rohit
                                                                     (Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.) (Siddharth,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ROHIT DAS
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad