Uttarakhand High Court
Kailash Yadav vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 30 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
2025:UHC:3319
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2025
Kailash Yadav .............Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and another ........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G. A. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated : 30.04.2025
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
Present criminal revision is filed by the
revisionist/convict against the judgment and order
dated 10.03.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal
Appeal No. 221 of 2023, whereby the appeal filed by
the revisionist/convict was dismissed by affirming the
judgment and order dated 15.12.2023 passed by Trial
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 6694 of
2018.
By the said impugned judgment and order,
the trial court convicted the revisionist under Sections
354, 354A, 354B IP.C. and sentenced
revisionist/convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment
of two years along with a fine of `1,000/- and in default
of payment of fine to further undergo the additional
imprisonment for a period of one month under Section
354 I.P.C.; sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of two years along with a fine of `1,000/-
2025:UHC:3319
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo the
additional imprisonment for a period of one month
under Section 354A I.P.C.; and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment of two years along with a fine of
`2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further
undergo the additional imprisonment for a period of
two months under Section 354B I.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was
lodged on 09.12.2018 at Police Station, Pantnagar by
the prosecutrix/ victim alleging therein that while she
was on morning walk at around 6:00 A.M., the
revisionist/convict approached her from behind,
smothered her mouth, dragged her behind the "Check
Post" and outraged her modesty by pulling and tearing
her clothes and misbehaving with her in sexually
offensive manner; the prosecutrix/victim managed to
free herself, fled and sought refuge at Gandhi Bhawan,
however, the accused followed her there; during the
incident, she also sustained injury on her hand; that,
on the basis of said complaint, the statement of the
prosecutrix/victim was recorded under Section 161
and 164 Cr.P.C., and after completion of investigation,
a charge sheet was filed against the revisionist/convict
under Sections 354, 354A, 354B & 506 of I.P.C.
3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Udham
Singh Nagar on receipt of the charge sheet and after
giving necessary copies to the accused as required under
section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of
Sessions for trial. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Udham Singh Nagar after hearing the parties, framed
charge of offence punishable under Sections 354, 354A,
354B and 506 IPC against the revisionist/convict who
2025:UHC:3319
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case,
examined as many as six prosecution witnesses i.e.
PW1 prosecutrix/victim, PW2 mother of the
prosecutrix/victim, PW3 sister of the
prosecutrix/victim, PW4 brother of prosecutrix/victim,
PW5 Sub Inspector Sonika Joshi Investigating Officer
and PW6 Beena Patalia, Assistant Warden of the
Hostel, Gandhi Bhawan.
5. The prosecution witnesses i.e. PW2 (mother of
the prosecutrix/victim), PW3 (sister of the
prosecutrix/victim), and PW4 (brother of the
prosecutrix/victim) in their testimonies before the trial
court recounted the version of events as narrated to
them by the prosecutrix/victim as they were not
present at the scene of the incident.
6. The prosecutrix/victim was examined as PW1,
who in her testimony stated that on 09.02.2018 at
approximately 6:00 AM, the victim went out for a routine
morning walk, upon reaching Gandhi Bhawan, she was
suddenly assaulted by revisionist/convict, who resided
near her home, the revisionist/convict smothered the
mouth of the prosecutrix/victim and dragged her behind
the check-post, misbehaved with her in sexually offensive
manner, when prosecutrix/victim resisted, the
revisionist/convict pushed her, tore her clothes, and she
sustained injuries on her hands; that, she managed to
escape screaming towards Gandhi Bhawan, but the gate
was closed, she collapsed unconscious near it then a
guard at Gandhi Bhawan assisted her by giving her
water; that, after which she regained consciousness;
2025:UHC:3319
that, the guard then informed her sister, Rikku Yadav,
who also work at Gandhi Bhawan; that, the mother and
sister of the prosecutrix/victim arrived shortly thereafter
and took the prosecutrix/victim home, and later, she was
taken to the Hospital for medical attention, subsequently,
a written complaint (Tahrir) was submitted to the
Pantnagar Police Station by her brother, Jitendra Yadav.
7. PW5 Sub Inspector Sonika Joshi, Investigating
Officer in her testimony before the trial court stated that
at the relevant time, she was posted at Police Station
Pantnagar and on 10.12.2018, she received the
complaint filed by proseuctrix/victim. After reviewing the
chick report, and marking the evidence of the victim and
her brother, the revisionist was arrested from his house
and was taken into police custody, after taking his
evidence, revisionist/convict was presented before the
court from where his 14 days judicial remand was
accepted.
8. PW6 Beena Patalia, Assistant Wardan, Gandhi
Bhawan in her testimony before the trial court stated
that at the relevant time, she was posted as Assistant
Wardan at Gandhi Bhawan, Pantnagar and on the
morning of 09.12.2018 between 6:00 A.M. and 6:30 A.M.,
Ramesh Bhatt, the Hostel Guard, informed her that a girl
had fainted near the gate, she immediately proceeded to
the gate with Ramesh Bhatt, where she observed a girl
crying and being cared for by another girl from her
hostel, who was offering her water, upon inquiry, the
assisting girl informed her that the distressed girl was
the sister of PW3, who was employed at the hostel then
Ramesh Bhatt contacted the family of the prosecutrix
using his phone; that, soon thereafter, the sister of the
prosecutrix/victim arrived; that, throughout this time,
2025:UHC:3319
the prosecutrix/victim appeared to be very frightened
and continued to cry uncontrollably.
9. The statement of revisionist/convict was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (the criminal procedure
then was), in which he pleaded that he has falsely been
implicated in the case. He also stated that false evidences
were given by all the witnesses against him. In defence,
the revisionist/convict only filed the photocopies of the
alleged complaint given by him to the Security Officer,
Govind Ballabh Pantnagar University and the letters
regarding the enmity between the revisionist/convict
and the family of the prosecutrix/victim. The
revisionist/convict later on, filed copy of complaint of
Complaint Case No. 237 of 2021 filed by wife of
revisionist/convict against the father of PW1
prosecturix/victim.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and perusal of the evidence by the parties, the
trial court in its impugned judgment convicted and
sentenced the revisionist under Sections 354, 354A,
354B IP.C. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist/convict
has filed criminal appeal, which was dismissed by the
Appellate Court. Hence, this present revision is filed by
the revisionist/convict assailing the said judgments.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist/convict
would press the present revision mainly on the ground
that the complainant and her family were having enmity
with the family of the revisionist/convict; that, it is
alleged that on 21.01.2018 at about 5:00 P.M., the father
of the prosecutrix/victim attempted to rape the wife of
the revisionist/convict; that, when the matter was raised,
the prosecutrix/victim and her family members allegedly
2025:UHC:3319
threatened the family of the revisionist/convict.
He would further submit that a complaint in
this regard was filed on 21.01.2018 by the wife of the
revisionist/convict; that, when no action was taken by
the concerned police, the complaint was sent to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar, via
speed post on 23.03.2018, but, when no FIR was
registered by the police authorities, a complaint case
dated 23.03.2018 was subsequently filed in the court of
the learned Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.
He would further submit that there is no
medical report of the prosecutrix (PW1) on record.
Additionally, according to the site plan (Exhibit P3), the
location of the alleged sexual assault, where the
prosecutrix was allegedly grabbed, is marked as Point A,
which is situated near the check post and not near
Gandhi Bhawan, as previously claimed.
12. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the
revision, contending that judicious scrutiny of the
judgments of both the trial court and the sessions court
reveals no illegality, incorrectness, impropriety in
judgments or any irregularity in the proceedings of the
trial court and the appellate Court. Therefore, there is no
occasion to interfere with the impugned judgments.
Learned State Counsel would submit that,
upon scrutiny, the statements of the prosecutrix/PW1
clearly establish the charges against the revisionist, and
there is no reason to doubt the credibility of her
testimony.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record in view of the submissions made by
2025:UHC:3319
them.
14. The submission of learned counsel for the
revisionist/convict is that there was enmity between
the families, and that the case was registered by the
prosecutrix/victim at the instance of her family
members in order to shield her father, who had
allegedly attempted to rape the wife of the
revisionist/convict. However, this allegation is
unfounded and a sheer fabrication, as it has not been
substantiated by any evidence on record.
Though, learned counsel for the
revisionist/convict would draw the attention of the
Court to the cross examination of the
prosecutrix/victim wherein it was stated that a
criminal case had been filed by the wife of the
revisionist/convict against the father of the
prosecutrix/victim, however, this was only brought up
as a suggestion during cross-examination and it was
not formally put to the victim or any other prosecution
witness like the mother, sister, or brother of the
prosecutrix/victim. It is also pertinent to mention that
this complaint case was not proved by evidence by
revisionist/convict. Merely, putting a suggestion about
some fact and denial in cross examination does not
make that fact in suggestion relevant.
The defence merely submitted photocopies of
complaints related to that criminal case during the trial
but these documents were not proven in court and the
official records were also not summoned in the trial
court, therefore, merely filing of photocopies of said
complaint case in the trial court in defence without
2025:UHC:3319
proving them shall not make the ground that the whole
story of the prosecution and the testimony of the
prosecutrix is unworthy, incredible and unbelievable.
15. The learned counsel for the
revisionist/convict would fairly concede that the first
complaint that allegedly was sent to the Station House
Officer (S.H.O.) on 21.01.2019 does not have any
stamp of receiving by the police station. If this
complaint was sent by speed post, as submitted by the
learned counsel for the revisionist/convict, this was not
proved in trial court.
It is also noteworthy that the complaint case
by the wife of the revisionist/convict was allegedly filed
only on 23.03.2018, i.e. approximately one and a half
months after the incident in question that led to the
conviction of the revisionist. In these circumstances,
only logical conclusion is that the complaint filed by
the wife of the revisionist/convict was nothing but an
unsuccessful attempt by the revisionist/convict and his
family members to exert pressure and blackmail the
prosecutrix/victim and her family member with the
ulterior motive of coercing her to withdraw her
complaint.
16. A perusal of the evidence of PW1, the
prosecutrix/victim, shows that her testimony before
the trial court, given on oath, is not only credible,
trustworthy, and believable, but also remained
unrebutted and unimpeached during cross-
examination. Furthermore, the testimony of PW6,
Beena Patalia, the Assistant Warden of the Pantnagar
Hostel, strongly corroborates both the prosecution's
2025:UHC:3319
case and the testimony of the prosecutrix/victim.
17. In the site plan, it is evident that Point A,
where the first incident of sexual assault occurred
(where the accused/revisionist allegedly grabbed the
prosecutrix), is located right in front of Gandhi
Bhawan. The accused then dragged the prosecutrix
behind the check post, as per the details in the case.
18. The fact that the medical officer who
medically examined the prosecutrix was not examined
during the trial is not fatal to the prosecution's case.
This is because the statement of the prosecutrix (PW1)
is strongly corroborated by the testimonies of PW2,
PW3, PW4, and particularly PW6 Beena Patalia, who
was the Assistant Warden. Their consistent accounts
leave no reasonable doubt about the credibility of the
prosecutrix's testimony.
Moreover, the injuries sustained by the
prosecutrix/victim were not of such a serious nature
that would necessitate repeated hospital visits or
prolonged treatment. This is not even the case made by
the accused/revisionist himself, Therefore, the
judgments of both the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court are based on a sound evaluation of
facts, witness testimony, and law, and there is no legal
or procedural error that would warrant interference by
the revisional court.
19. It is trite that the scope of jurisdiction of
revision is not as vast as that of appeal. The revisional
court has a limited scope. In the revisional jurisdiction,
the Court has simply to see whether there is any
illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order
2025:UHC:3319
assailed before the Court, or any irregularity in the
proceedings adopted by the courts below.
20. It is common knowledge that there is sharp
decline in the moral standards in society. The
migration from native places and settling at new places
has taken away the fear of social sanctions and being
proscribed in society. The sexual offences against
women and children are on the rise. Therefore, the
gender-related offences must be addressed with
heightened sensitivity.
21. In India, the sexual offences have become
very common, emerging as one of the most alarming
forms of criminal activity. It is a heinous crime that
deeply affects not only the victim but also the broader
fabric of society. The rising number of attempted rape
cases reported on a regular basis raises serious
concerns about the safety and security of women in the
country. Hardly a day passes without news of such
incidents, which underscores the urgent need for
stronger preventive measures. Although women make
up half of the world's population, they have historically
been subjected to various forms of control, violence,
and subjugation at the hands of their male
counterparts.
Even from ancient times, our tradition has
honored women in every aspect of life, with a special
reverence for the worship of the mother. Both spiritual
life and social service have always been open to women,
who have, throughout history, demonstrated dynamic
energy, sincere devotion, and dedicated service. Indian
aesthetics, philosophy, and tradition have long
celebrated the diverse qualities of women. The
2025:UHC:3319
refinement of both men and women over time marks
the true essence of civilization. In Indian culture
womanhood has always been venerated. It is common
knowledge, that, in Ancient Indian Literature of all
Indic languages, the women were addressed as "Devi"
means Goddess. It is also notable that most of the
names of women in Indian are suffixed by word "Devi".
In Southern part of India, the women names are, at
times, suffixed by word "Amma" which means mother.
In ancient India jurisprudence as codified in
manusmiriti, one of the most frequently cited verses
that shows reverence toward women is:
;= uk;ZLrq iqT;Urs jeUrs r= nsork%A
;=SrkLrq u iwT;Urs lokZlr=kQyk% fØ;kAA euqLe`fr AA3@56AA
"Where women are honoured there the Gods rejoice
and where they are not honoured, all works become
fruitless."
But it seems the revisionist/convict has no
reverence for social norms, moral standards, and law of
the land. His act is reprehensible, hence, should be
dealt without any leniency.
22. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the
court below shows that the court has dealt with all the
aspects of the matter and has thereafter passed the
impugned judgment.
23. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not
point out any irregularity in the proceedings of the
lower court or any impropriety, illegality and
incorrectness in the impugned orders.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
is of the view that there is no reason to make any
interference in the impugned judgment and order. The
2025:UHC:3319
revision deserves to be dismissed at the admission
stage.
25. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed
in limine.
26. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial
court for information.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
30.04.2025
Mamta
