Uttarakhand High Court
Sanjay Kashyap vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 November, 2025
2025:UHC:9688-DB
Judgment reserved on: 30.08.2025
Judgment delivered on: 20.11.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2022
Sanjay Kashyap -------Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ----Respondents
Presence:-
Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. J.S.Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rakesh
Joshi Brief Holder for the State.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT:
(per Sri Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
The appellant, Sanjay Kashyap has filed the
present Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and Order
dated 18/20.7.2022, passed by Special Judge (POCSO)/
District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Special
Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2020, State vs. Krishna alias
Basu & another, whereby he has been convicted under
Sections 504, 506 and 509 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
05.06.2020, a complaint was filed by the complainant
Smt. Pinki (PW1) before the Inspector-in-charge, Police
Station Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal to the effect
that her daughter (victim) is aged 15 years and 9 months
2025:UHC:9688-DB
old; that on 7th/8th May, 2020, when the complainant
was busy in her brother's wedding preparation and her
other children were at home alone then taking benefit of
absence of the complainant, the appellant Krishna alias
Basu S/o Ramesh Singh, R/o Shishamjhadi, Kailash
Gate, Gali No. 33, Police Station-Muni Ki Reti, District
Tehri Garhwal, who was living opposite to her house,
under the pretext of giving tuition to her daughter
showed her pornographic film and by luring the victim
raped her. When the victim told him that she will report
about this incident then the appellant Krishna @ Basu
threatened to kill her entire family and again committed
rape upon her and asked her to keep mum. Today, when
the daughter of the complainant felt severe stomach pain
then she told her the entire incident. The complainant
took her daughter to the Doctor and the Doctor
diagnosed rape and internal swelling; that when the
complainant went to house of the appellant then the
appellant, his mother Rajni and father Ramesh
misbehaved with her and drove the appellant free from
their home. The complainant submitted that the
appellant and his family members are threatening them
and are making false allegations against her daughter.
3. On the basis of the complaint (Ext. Ka-1) of the
complainant; case was registered against the accused
Krishna @ Basu on 05.06.2020 at 16:10 P.M., as Case
Crime No. 75 of 2020, at Police Station Muni Ki Reti,
District Tehri Garhwal. The investigation of the case was
handed over to (PW9) Sub Inspector Shahida Parveen,
and against the appellant Sanjay Kashyap (who is the
Uncle of the accused Krishna and whose name figured
during the investigation), a charge-sheet was filed under
Sections 504, 506 and 509 IPC and Section 11/12 & 16
2025:UHC:9688-DB
/17 of the POCSO Act.
4. Trial Court took the cognizance of the case and
provided copies to the accused and charges were framed
against the appellant Sanjay Kashyap under Sections
504, 506 and 509 IPC and Section 11/12 & 16 /17 of the
POCSO Act. The accused-appellant Sanjay Kashyap
denied the version of the prosecution and claimed trial.
5. The following witnesses were examined by the
prosecution in oral evidence:-
Prosecution Name of the Relation to Evidence
Witnesses Witnesses
PW -1 Smt. Pinky Singh Mother of the victim (complainant)
PW-2 Constable Pallav Chick FIR writer
Chauhan
PW-3 Manoj Kumar Victim's Father
PW-4 Dr. Niharika Medical witness
Sachdeva
PW-5 Victim Victim
PW-6 Dr. Bhupendra Medical witness
Singh Tolia
PW-7 Dr. Ankita Uniyal Medical witness
PW-8 Sub Inspector Witness of arrest of co-accused
Vikendra Kumar Sanjay Kashyap
PW-9 Sub Inspector Preliminary Investigator
Shaida Parveen
PW-10 Sub Inspector Investigator
Deepika Tiwari
PW-11 Smt. Suman Witness to the date of birth of the
Dobriyal (Principal) victim
PW-12 Shashank Gupta Witness to the date of birth of the
victim
6. The following documents were presented by the
prosecution as documentary evidence:-
S.No. Types of Documents Documents Paper Number
Exhibit
1 Tahrir Exhibit Ka-1 Ka-3
2 Chick FIR Exhibit Ka-2 4 Ka/1-3
3 G.D. of filing case Exhibit Ka-3 6 Ka
4 Medical Examination report of Exhibit Ka-4 16Ka/1-14
the Victim
5 Statement of the victim Exhibit Ka-5 30Ka/3-4
recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C.
6 Birth certificate of the victim Exhibit Ka-6 10Ka
7 Police Information Form, Police Exhibit Ka-7 11Ka
Station Rishikesh
8. Medical Examination Report of Exhibit Ka-8 84Ka
2025:UHC:9688-DB
the victim
9. Letter written by the Chief Exhibit Ka-9 37Ka
Medical Superintendant to the
Chief Medical Officer regarding
taking blood sample for DNA
testing.
10. Victim's blood sample Exhibit Ka-10 32 Ka
authentication form
11. Blood Sample Authentication Exhibit Ka-11 33Ka
Form of accused Krishna alias
Basu
12. Letter written by the Chief Exhibit Ka-12 34Ka
Medical Superintendant to the
court regarding taking blood
sample from DNA
13. Arrest/Information Memo of Exhibit Ka-13 64Ka/1-2
accused Sanjay Kashyap
14. GD No. 76 of Police Station Exhibit Ka-14 63Ka
Muni Ki Reti dated 04.07.2020,
time 21:46
15. Map view Exhibit Ka-15 14Ka
16. Arrest Memo of accused Exhibit Ka-16 22Ka
Krishna alias Basu
17. Information memo of accused Exhibit Ka-17 21Ka
Krishna alias Basu
18. Application for permission to Exhibit Ka-18 29Ka
record the statement of the
victim under Section 164
Cr.P.C.
19. Application for permission to Exhibit Ka-19 30Ka/2
record statement of the victim
under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
20. Affidavit of Investigating Officer Exhibit Ka-20 30Ka/5
Shahida Parveen regarding not
disclosing the statement of the
victim under Section 164
Cr.P.C. to the accused or any
other person
21. Application for taking blood Exhibit Ka-21 27Ka
sample of victim and accused
Krishna alias Basu for DNA test
22. Forwarding letter for chemical Exhibit Ka-22 31Ka/1-2
test
23. Permission application for Exhibit Ka-23 36Ka
sending goods for forensic
science laboratory testing
24. Forwarding letter for chemical Exhibit Ka-24 62Ka/1-2
test
25. Charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-25 5Ka/1-8
26. Victim's exit certificate issued Exhibit Ka-26 132 Ka/2
by the school
27. Victim's Secondary School Exhibit Ka-27 135Ka/2
Examination, 2021 Mark-sheet
cum certificate.
28. Transfer certificate issued by Exhibit Ka-28 135Ka/3
the school
29. Forensic Science Laboratory Exhibit Ka-29 135Ka/4
Report No. FSL-904
(Bio/DNA)/2020, dated
27.07.2020 (order passed on
Application Form 137A, Paper
No. 138A, dated 21.05.2022,
marked as Exhibit under
Section 293 Cr.P.C.
7. After the prosecution evidence, the statement
2025:UHC:9688-DB
of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.,
in which, all the prosecution evidence was placed before
the accused in the form of question and answer and the
appellant denied the allegations made against him and
stated that prior to recording of statement of the victim
under Section 164 Cr.P.C., a demand of Rs. 12 Lakhs
and a further demand for the house, in which, the bother
of appellant was residing was made by the family of the
victim. He has been wrongly implicated as the family of
victim thought that he was the one who had asked his
brother (father of the accused Krishna) not to accede to
the demand of family of the victim.
8. In defence evidence, the accused presented Dr.
Vandana Rajput DW-1 and Dr. Rajendra Garg (DW-2) as
defence witness and following documents were presented
as the documentary evidence.
S.No. Types of Documents Documents Exhibit Paper
Number
1 Register of Shivalik Diagnostic & Imaging Exhibit Ka-1 147A/1-2
Centre, PNDT, 50/3, Dehradun Road,
Rishikesh.
2 Victim's U.S.G. of Adbomen & Pelvis Exhibit D-2 13A/1-2
Report.
9. As per the prosecution witness PW1 (mother of
the victim) rape was committed by the accused Krishna
alias Basu on her minor daughter on the pretext of
imparting tuition and the said fact was told to the PW1
by her daughter on 04.06.2020 and she went with a
written complaint to Kailashgate Police Station on
04.06.2020, when the Police Station in-charge called the
appellant's family to the Police Station then appellant's
family members made the appellant run away. On the
same evening the appellant was arrested; that as it was
very late on 04.06.2020, her report was not registered.
2025:UHC:9688-DB
On 05.06.2020, the family members of Krishna called her
to their house and pressurised her for compromise and
when she refused then they beaten her. Krishna's Uncle
Sanjay Kashyap abused the victim and said that we will
buy a girl like her for Five to Ten Lakh Rupees. The
victim had consumed poison after hearing this and she
was admitted in a Government Hospital at Rishikesh.
10. PW1 in her cross-examination stated that Ext.
Ka-1 was written by her before going to the hospital. She
further states that it is correct to say that in this report it
is not mentioned that the victim consumed poison nor it
is written that she is admitted in the hospital because
she had written this report on 04.06.2020 itself and this
fact is correct that on the report the date of 05.06.2020 is
mentioned separately.
11. In the cross-examination, PW1 further stated
that during the scuffle she was the only one who was
hurt and nobody else was hurt. Even her medical
examination was not conducted. She further submits
that in the FIR, neither it is mentioned that the appellant
Sanjay Kashyap had abused the victim nor it is
mentioned that the appellant had said that girl like
victim can be purchased in 5 to 10 lakhs. Though PW1
in her statement has stated that the victim had
consumed poison on hearing the ill words spoken by the
appellant however, in her cross-examination she stated
that she cannot tell at what time the victim had
consumed poison and the said fact was brought to her
notice by her husband. Further, she stated that the
appellant was residing seperately and was not residing in
the lane in which the house of PW1 is situated. She
further submitted that a proposal was made by the family
2025:UHC:9688-DB
of the accused that the victim and accused would be
married and there was an objection from the appellant.
12. PW2 (Constable Pallav Chauhan) is the writer
of the Chick FIR. He stated that on 05.06.2020, PW1
came with the Complaint and informed that when the
PW1 went to the house of the accused Krishna @ Basu,
then the mother and father of the accused misbehaved
with her. Thus, as per the statement of PW2, there was
no information provided by the PW1 with regard to any
scuffle that took place with the appellant.
13. PW3 (father of the victim) in his statement
stated that the appellant and the family members of the
accused had beaten his wife and when the accused
Krishna @ Basu stated that he will marry with his
daughter then the appellant stated that girls like his
daughter are available in 5 to 10 lakhs and on hearing
this, his daughter consumed some poisonous substance
and her pregnancy was spoiled. On cross-examination,
PW3 stated that the appellant is residing at least ten
houses away from his house.
14. PW4 (Dr. Niharika Sachdeva) in her statement
recorded that the victim told her in the Medico Legal
Examination that the accused Krishna @ Basu was ready
for marriage but the uncle and aunt of the accused gave
threats and then the victim consumed poisonous
substance (Phenyl).
15. As per the statement of PW5 (victim), the father
of the accused had called them to his house and the
appellant abused her and during the scuffle she was hit
by the family members on her stomach and the appellant
2025:UHC:9688-DB
held her hand and called her characterless and asked
that she should die by consuming poison and, as such,
she consumed Phenyl and after regaining consciousness
she found her in the hospital. In her cross-examination,
PW5 admitted that in the medico legal examination
history told by her in hospital she stated that during the
scuffle she was hit in her stomach and her mother was
also injured. She admitted that in the said medico legal
examination history the name of the appellant or his wife
was not mentioned and only uncle and aunty was
mentioned. She further admitted that the appellant was
not residing in the house of the accused and was residing
at least 11-12 house away and in the house of the
accused his brother Sankalp Kashyap, Shreyash
Kashyap, Shashank Kashyap, uncle Santosh Kashyap,
aunt Sweta Kashyap and his parents were residing.
16. PW 5 further submitted that she has given the
statement to the Police authority that the appellant had
told the accused Krishna @ Basu that girl like her would
be purchased in 5 to 10 lakhs and the aunty Sweta
Kashyap and cousin Sankalp started scuffle, in which,
she was hit on stomach. The appellant held her hand and
called her characterless and asked her to consume
poison. However, she admitted that in the statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. only it was mentioned that the
victim was called characterless and she was asked to
settle the things and other statements were not
mentioned. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
the victim stated that the appellant called her
characterless and had also asked to settle the matter by
accepting 5 to 10 lakhs. The co-accused Krishna was told
by the appellant not to marry the victim and was
2025:UHC:9688-DB
threatened that she would be killed and on hearing this
she went to her home and consumed poison.
17. PW8 (SI Vikendra Kumar), who arrested the
appellant on 04.07.2020, in his cross-examination,
admitted that the house of the appellant was 500 meters
away from the house of the co-accused Krishna and was
on a different lane. PW10 (SI Dipika Tiwari), in her
statement admitted that the appellant after the
registration of the case had not absconded and remained
in his house and was arrested from his house.
18. Statements of the prosecution witnesses and
the evidence led by the prosecution resulted, in the
conviction of the appellant under Sections 504, 506 and
509 IPC. Though the appellant was also charged under
Sections 11/12 and 16/17 of the POCSO Act, but it was
admitted in the impugned judgment that the charge of
POCSO Act was wrongly levelled against the appellant.
The statement of PW1 to PW5 depicts contradictions with
regard to the incident of 05.06.2020 wherein the
appellant was accused of causing hurt to the victim and
abusing her. As per the statement of PW 1 she was the
only one who was injured in the incident and no one else
was injured and her medical was not conducted. As per
PW2 the PW 1 on 05.06.2020 informed him that the
father and mother of the accused misbehaved with her.
There is no information with regard to any alleged
incident that occurred on 05.06.2020 involving the
appellant. PW3 (father of the victim) in his statement
recorded that the appellant and the other family
members had beaten his wife and the appellant abused
the victim. PW 4 in her statement recorded that the
victim during the medico legal examination told that the
2025:UHC:9688-DB
uncle and aunt gave her threats and, as such, the victim
consumed poison. PW 5 in her statement admits that
during her Medico Legal Examination the name of the
appellant was not taken by her. She also admits that the
appellant is residing in a separate house and other uncle
and aunt were residing with the accused Krishna and his
family. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., PW5
submits that she was called characterless by the
appellant and was asked to settle the matter and was
threatened that she would be killed and on hearing this
she consumed poison. There is no mention of the fact
that the victim was hit by the appellant on stomach.
Thus, it is clear that at every stage, the victim improvise
on her statement. The prosecution, as such, failed to
prove that as to who were the uncle and aunty who
threatened, cause hurt and abused the victim, whether it
was the appellant and his wife or the uncle & aunty
residing with the parents of the accused who were
present on the date of incidence.
19. The statements of PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW5 to
PW10 about the incidence of consumption of poisonous
substance by the victim on 5th June, 2020 reveals the
various contradictions, which are as follows:
(i) As per PW 1, the uncle of the appellant Sanjay
Kashyap abused the victim, as such, she
consumed poison and she was admitted to
Government Hospital at Rishikesh. PW1 in her
cross-examination stated that the fact of
consumption of poison by the victim and her
admission in Government Hospital was not
mentioned in the First Information Report
registered on 05.06.2020 as the complaint was
prepared by her on 04.06.2020.
2025:UHC:9688-DB
(ii) PW3 (father of the victim) in his cross-
examination stated that he did not saw the
victim consuming poison (Phenyl) with his own
eyes as the victim had locked the bathroom
door from inside and the door was made of
aluminium, its latch was broken by pushing
and the victim was taken out, however the
broken latch was not shown to the
Investigator. As per PW3, the victim was taken
to the hospital on scooter and the victim had
vomited once between home and the hospital
and the vomit had fallen on the victim's cloth;
the said cloths were shown to the Police and
the victim wore the said clothes in the hospital.
As per PW3 the victim was made to vomit
several times in hospital and she regained
consciousness in 3-4 hours.
(iii) As per PW4 (Dr. Niharika Sachdeva) on 5th
June, 2020, she was posted at SPS Hospital,
Rishikesh, the victim was brought to her for
medico legal at 7:15 P.M. In cross-examination,
the PW 4 stated that there was no trace of
vomit on the clothes of the victim at the time of
examination.
(iv) As per the victim (PW5) on 5th June, 2020 the
appellant's father called them to their house
and the appellant's aunt and brother abused
and beaten her and in the fight they punched
her in the stomach. She felt sick and started
vomiting and when Sanjay Kashyap abused
her by saying her characterless and said you
should consume poison and die then she
consumed poison and when she regained
consciousness she saw her in hospital.
2025:UHC:9688-DB
(v) The statements of PW6 to PW10 reveal that no
efforts were made by them to ascertain as to
whether the victim had consumed any
poisonous substance or not.
(vi) Moreover, PW9 (the Investigating Officer) in the
cross-examination, admits that there was no
broken latch of bathroom and mother of the
victim had told him that the victim had
consumed poison in bathroom, however, the
latch or bolt of the bathroom was not found
broken. There is no medical report to indicate
that the victim had consumed poison and there
is no evidence of the victim being hospitalised
for 3-4 days. Thus, the theory of consumption
of poisonous substance by the victim in
absence of any medical report was belied.
20. In view of the above discussions, we are of the
considered view that the prosecution was not able to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the
appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Order dated
18/20.07.2022, passed by the Special Judge
(POCSO)/District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Gahrwal, in
Special Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2020, State vs. Krishna
@ Basu and another, convicting the appellant under
Sections 504, 506 and 509 of IPC, is hereby set aside.
Let a copy of this judgment and order along with TCR be
remitted back to the concerned Court.
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated :20.11.2025
Kaushal
2025:UHC:9688-DB
