Lakshmi Prasad vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 12318 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Lakshmi Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 11 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:198468
 

 
 Reserved on 11.9.2025 
 
Delivered on 11.11.2025
 
 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2614 of 1986   
 
   Lakshmi Prasad    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
S.K. Misra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
A.G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 87
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.     

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and the learned AGA for State.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.9.1986 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1985 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC ordering the appellant under Section 30(1) Updhara B) of U.P. Act, 1952 for showing two years good behaviour on the security of Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 3000/- on probation.

Factual Matrix of Case

3. Prosecution story which emerges from FIR is that on April 14, 1982, at approximately 2:00 P.M., the informant Prema Devi's daughter (hereinafter referred to as the victim) went to the house of one Shiv Kumar to call a known police constable after being asked by her mother. When victim reached at the house of Shiv Kumar, appellant was sitting there. She asked him about the constable and then he lured her to go inside the room to find him. Immediately upon the victim's entry into the room, appellant also followed, and bolted the door from inside. Appellant then threw the victim to the ground and committed rape upon her. The victim started weeping and screaming. When the informant's daughter did not return after sometime , then informant herself went to Shiv Kumar's house, where she discovered her daughter weeping. She found the doors of the house open. When appellant saw informant there, he immediately fled the scene. The weeping victim emerged and disclosed to the informant that she had been ravished by the Appellant.?

4. A written complaint (Exhibit Ka. 1) was submitted by the informant, Prema Devi, at Police Station Kotwali, District Banda, on April 14, 1982. Consequently, an FIR (Exhibit Ka. 3) was registered against the Appellant, Laxmi Prasad, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case was entrusted to PW-7 Ram Vilas Mishra, Station House Officer (S.H.O.), for investigation.?

5. The victim underwent medical examination by PW-5 Dr. K. Kumari on April 15, 1982. Her examination revealed the following findings:

(i)External Examination: No marks of injury were observed over the body or private parts; no stains were noted on the front of the thighs or the perennial regions.

(ii)Examination of Private Parts: No mark of injury was present. Blood discharge was observed emanating from the vagina, and the entire vulva appeared reddened and tender.

6. The Medical Report prepared by PW-5 Dr. K. Kumari was marked as Exhibit Ka-6. Furthermore, P.W-6 Dr. P.C. Bahgel testified regarding the X-ray examination conducted to ascertain the victim's age, stating that at the time of the occurrence, the victim was below 15 years of age. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) recorded the statements of six prosecution witnesses and subsequently submitted a Charge Sheet against the Appellant under Section 376 IPC. Charges were formally framed against the Appellant under the same provision.

7. PW-1 Prema Devi (Informant) deposed that her daughter, aged approximately 10-11 years, was sent by her to Shiv Kumar's house to call a known police constable between 1:00 and 2:00 P.M. When her daughter did not return after sometime, she herself went to house of Shiv Kumar where she heard her weeping. As she approached the door, the Appellant fled the room, and her daughter emerged weeping, disclosing that the Appellant had told her to enter the room to call the constable, bolted the door from inside, and then ravished her. She was extensively cross-examined but defence counsel failed to elicit any substantial material to discredit her testimony. PW-2 Head Moharrir Abdul Majid, has proved the recovery of the victim's undergarments by the I.O. on the date of the occurrence, which were marked as Exhibit Ka. 2. PW-3 Constable Prem Narayan, has proved the preparation of the nakal chik (Exhibit Ka. 3) and the carbon copy of the General Diary entry (Exhibit Ka. 4) related to the FIR. PW-5 Dr. K. Kumari (Medical Officer) has stated that she examined the victim on April 14, 1982, and prepared her Medical Report (Exhibit Ka. 6). She categorically stated that the report suggests the victim was subjected to sexual assault. P.W. 4 Dr. P.C. Chandel has proved X-ray plate (Exhibit Kha. 5) of the victim.

8. PW-6 (Victim) has testified that she knows the Appellant and was residing with her mother, a teacher in Banda. Shiv Kumar's house was near her residence. She went there on her mother's instruction to call a police constable. She stated the Appellant was sitting there and committed rape upon her after dragging her inside the house. She confirmed disclosing the incident to her mother. The defense's cross-examination was brief and did not reveal anything adverse to the prosecution.

9. PW-7 S.H.O Ram Niwas Mishra has conducted investigation and has proved the Spot Map (Exhibit Ka. 7) and Charge Sheet (Exhibit Ka. 8). The statement of the Appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), in which he denied all allegations.

Finding of the Learned Trial Court

10. The Learned Trial Court meticulously examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Considering the testimony of PW-1 Prema Devi, who arrived immediately after the incident, coupled with the deposition of the victim (PW-6), the Trial Court determined that their statements were free from infirmity and corroborated the prosecution's narrative. The oral testimony was further corroborated by the Medical Report (Exhibit Ka. 6), prepared by PW-5 Dr. K. Kumari, who unequivocally stated that the victim had been subjected to sexual assault.

11. The Trial Court also considered the victim's age, established by the prosecution through the X-ray Report (Exhibit Ka. 5) prepared by PW-4 Dr. P.C. Chandel. This witness testified that the X-ray results indicated the victim was 13-14 years old at the time of the occurrence. Based on these facts, the Learned Trial Court concluded that the uncontroverted deposition of the victim, corroborated by the medical evidence, established beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant had committed rape.

12. However, noting that the Appellant was below 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence and had no prior convictions, the Trial Court granted him the benefit of Section 30 of the U.P. Children's Act and released him on probation. The finding regarding the Appellant's age was based on his educational certificate, which recorded his Date of Birth as June 30, 1966, and confirmed his enrolment as a student in Class XI.

Submissions in the Present Appeal

13. The submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned AGA were heard, and the record was perused.

14. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that this case has been pending since 1985, and the Appellant was a minor, approximately 18 years of age and a student, at the time of the occurrence. Due to the Appellant's minority, the Learned Trial Court correctly granted him the benefit of Section 30 of the U.P. Children's Act. The Appellant was released on probation subject to the condition of furnishing two surety bonds of ? 3,000/- each, one to be furnished by his father. He was further directed to remain on probation for two years under his father's custody while maintaining good behavior. The Appellant has complied with all the directions contained in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Appellant has no grievance against the impugned judgment and requests that the appeal be disposed of accordingly.

15. Learned AGA submitted that findings of Trial Court based upon the testimony of the victim which is duly corroborated by medical evidence is perfectly sound. The victim was a minor at the time of the occurrence, and the FIR was lodged promptly by her mother. Prompt lodging of FIR coupled with other factors like absence of prior enmity and corroboration of alleged offence by medical evidence rules out any chance of false implication. There is no reason to assume that appellant was falsely implicated in this case. The medical examination conducted the following day further demonstrates that the victim was raped by the Appellant. It was further submitted that the evidence collected during the investigation and the depositions during the trial are unblemished, and the judgment based on the prosecution's evidence suffers from no illegality. The prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Appellate Court's Conclusion

16. The evidence adduced by the prosecution was meticulously examined. The testimony of a victim of a sexual offence is of paramount importance and holds the same value as that of an injured witness. Furthermore, Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act mandates a presumption against the accused where the victim alleges that sexual intercourse was committed without her consent. If the prosecution establishes this presumption through the victim's deposition, the onus shifts to the accused to prove the contrary.

17. In the instant case, the victim's testimony, duly corroborated by the medical evidence, is sufficient to establish the charges against the Appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated September 24, 1986, rendered by the Learned Trial Court, warrants no interference. Consequently, the judgment of conviction rendered by the Learned Trial Court is hereby affirmed and sustained.

18. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated September 24, 1986, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, in Session Trial No. 18 of 1985, is hereby affirmed. This appeal is dismissed. Appellant was released by Learned Trial Court by extending benefit of Section 30 of U.P. Children Act after furnishing of two personal bonds of Rs.3000/ each, out of which one was to be furnished by his father. Hence ,Appellant is further directed to furnish a bail bond in compliance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the concerned Court within two months from the date of this order.

19. The Trial Court's record shall be remitted back along with a copy of this judgment.

20. A compliance report shall be submitted to this Court at the earliest. The Office is directed to place the compliance report on record.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

November 11, 2025

Ujjawal