Uttarakhand High Court
Abdul Rehman --Applicant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 October, 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
Bail Application (IA No.1/2025)
IN
Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2025
29th October, 2025
Abdul Rehman --Applicant/Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Prabhakar Joshi and Ms. Poorvi Chaudhary, learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant.
Mr. J. S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Rakesh
Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
--------------------------------------------------------------
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the appellant/
applicant and learned Deputy Advocate General for the
State.
2. This is one more case where conviction is
premised on the statements of the victim with
absolutely no corroborating material.
3. The case of the complainant is that on
10.02.2022 at around 4:00 p.m. the victim was going to
her Uncle's house, which is about 2 kilometres from her
house and that she was on foot; that, at around 5:00
p.m. after meeting her uncle and aunt she returned to
her home; that, when she was walking back to her
house a man came behind her on a motorcycle and
asked where she is going and when she replied that she
is going to her house, he offered to drop her. It is the
case that she does not know the man's name and that
she was seeing him for the first time and that the
person asked her father's name and when she revealed
her father's name he said that he knows her father very
well and she sat behind him in his motorcycle. This is
also the statement made by the victim and she has
been confronted in paragraph no.7 of the statement
recorded during her cross-examination. Further in
paragraph no.8 she stated that the motorcyclist took her
to a dilapidated house and there in the garden he
forcibly raped her; that she would recognize the man
who had raped her and would recognize him on any day
if he is brought before her.
4. The undisputed fact is that, the accused is
none other than the brother of her sister-in-law. This
fact is admitted by her during the course of cross-
examination. In the statement recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. she has deposed as under:-
"Civil Court (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate Kashipur,
Udham Singh Nagar.
Under Section 363,366, 376
323, 506 IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act,
P.S. Kashipur, U.S. Nagar
Dated 26/2/22
Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Victim of FIR No.97/22, Father's Name - Resident -
Occupation - Studies, Age-14 years.
Stated on oath that-
1. On 10/2/22, at around 8-9 pm, Rehman was
took me with him on his bike and he withdrew money
from the an ATM.
2. He said that they have to go to Bedjudi where
his in-laws is there. He took me there inside his shop
at Kashipur. He took me to the room with him.
(3) Then he said, 'If you do not take off your
clothes, I will beat you with a knife. He behaved
indecently and I ran away on the pretext of spitting.
4. There I called my father from the house of the
aunty in front, then my brother and father came to
pick me up. They took me away.
5. After that my father called the police. Then Raha
also came to my house. He told me that I had gone
away with someone from him.
This is my statement.
Verified after hearing
Certificate
This statement has been recorded verbatim by
me on producing the victim (FIR No.97/2022) after
being identified by the I.O. Beena Papola. Statement
has been recorded verbatim as per the statement of
the witness.
Dated-26.2.2022
Civil Judge (J.D.) Kashipur
(U.S. Nagar)"
5. The version narrated above is in stark contrast
to the statement, stated in the examination-in-chief in
paragraph no.2 which is as under:-
"2. On 10th February 2022, at 7 pm, my sister-in-
law Ashi, who is my real sister-in-law, sent me to her
village Bhaupura with her brother Abdul Rehman to
get a sewing machine. Bhaupura is 15 km away from
my house. Abdul Rehman took me from my house on
his bike and instead of taking me to Bhaupura, he
took me to his furniture shop in Kashipur and there
was a house in which that shop was located. In the
same house, there were two rooms inside which were
covered with grass and were of ruin type, the accused
Abdul Rehman took me there and locked the door and
told me to take off my clothes or else he would kill
me."
6. The case of the complainant, as reproduced by
the Trial Court in paragraph no.4 of its judgment, is as
under:-
"4. Briefly the prosecution story is that the
informant/the victim's father (PW2) submitted a
written complaint (P-2) to the Kashipur Police Station,
Udham Singh Nagar to the effect that on 10.02.2022
at about 7 pm, his son's brother-in-law Abdul Rehman
(accused) came to his house and took his daughter
(victim) aged 14 years with him saying that he had
taken permission from me and he was taking her to
Bhaupura to get a Rita sewing machine, while she
(informant) did not know anything. The accused took
the victim to the ruins near his furniture shop in
village Nijhada and kept a sledgehammer on the neck
of his daughter victim and asked her to remove all her
clothes. When his daughter/victim refused, he
threatened to kill her, then he beat her badly. He
removed all the clothes of his daughter and forcefully
raped her. The victim of the case somehow ran away
from there without clothes and slippers and hid in
someone's house and with their help called him and
the applicant brought his daughter home at 1 o'clock
in the night, who was very scared and frightened and
was not speaking anything. The victim was quiet and
scared, when his wife asked her, she told him the
whole incident."
7. In the cross-examination, both the
complainant and the victim have turned hostile. The
fact remains that the victim was medically examined on
13.02.2022, the medical examination does not reveal
any material corroborating the allegations of penetrative
sexual assault or rape. The FSL report is also bereft of
any incriminating material.
8. In paragraph no.20 of the cross-examination,
more particularly, in response to the questions put by
the Court, she has answered as under:-
"By the court-
20. I have four brothers. I have only one sister-in-
law. And her name is Aashi.... My sister-in-law is in
her maternal home in Bhaupura. My sister-in-law has
been there since her brother Rehman left. One of my
brothers is in Moradabad jail and the other brother is
in Haldwani jail. My other brother who is in Haldwani
jail has gone to jail for theft and his name is N.... My
other brother who is in Moradabad jail is named A....
A... is in Moradabad jail because my sister-in-law has
filed a case against him and that case is of rape. The
day I was raped, I came home in the evening. My
sister-in-law was at home at that time. The next day
she went to her maternal home. I do not know why
my sister-in-law went to her maternal home. Her
brother Gu... had taken her away. I did not give any
statement in this matter because of my brother's
case. There was no such talk with me that if I testify
in favour of accused Rehman in this case, he will
testify in favour of my brother.
Signature of witness
It is certified that the above statement of the witness
was recorded by the stenographer/clerk in my
presence and under my direction and the above
statement of the witness was read out to him.
(Shivakant Dwivedi)
Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC Rudrapur,
Udham Singh Nagar"
9. If the serious prevarications and gross
inconsistencies are appreciated in the light of the
admitted facts, as recorded by the Trial Court in
paragraph no.20, the complaint appears to sound hollow
and motivated. It is inconceivable that the victim could
have been asked by her sister-in-law to accompany the
accused, who is none other than her own brother after
having levelled charges of rape against the brother of
her husband and who admittedly is languishing in the
jail at Moradabad on the charges levelled by the sister-
in-law.
10. The prosecution does not deny this fact. That
be so, it is apparent and can be safely inferred that
there would have been bad blood between the
husband's family and the family of the sister-in-law.
Despite this, the Court has gleefully accepted the
prosecution's version and that too in the absence of any
incriminating material. Much is sought to be made about
the scratch marks said to have been found on the body
of the victim and which apparently the Doctor has
opined are more than 48 hours old. The statement by
the victim does not anywhere refer to any injuries
caused by the appellant nor has the victim stated as to
how the injuries have been caused. In the absence of
such crucial evidence the inference drawn by the Trial
Court and reliance placed upon these injuries in our,
prima facie, opinion appears to be misplaced. The
appreciation of evidence appears to be vitiated by
perversity.
11. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at
the most would have constituted an offence under
Section 506 of IPC. The statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. does not anywhere even refer to any physical
contact between the victim and the assailant. Despite
the same and despite the absence of even assemblance
of evidentiary material, the judgment of conviction,
prima facie, does not appeal to this Court.
12. Section 376 (3) IPC deals with the offence of
rape committed on a person aged below 16 years. In
the absence of any material to demonstrate rape,
conviction under Section 376(3) IPC, prima facie,
appears to be unsustainable.
13. Be that as it may, the statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not even suggest that an
attempt was made to rape her. The statement merely
states that he asked her to remove her clothes.
14. Be that as it may, the previous history of
registration of a criminal case of rape against the
victim's brother and son of PW2, in our, prima facie,
opinion does not appear to have been appreciated in a
proper manner. It is pertinent to note that the answers
as recorded in paragraph no.20 of the cross-
examination were elicited pursuant to questions posed
by the Court.
15. The prosecution's version does not inspire
confidence in this Court in view of the pending criminal
case between the brother of the victim and the sister-in-
law or the sister of the appellant which involved charges
of rape. In that view of the matter, we are of the
considered opinion that the appellant/applicant has
made out a prima facie case for grant of relief.
16. In that view, the bail application (IA/1/2025)
is allowed. Accordingly, the sentence imposed under the
judgment and order dated 27/30.11.2024 in Special
Session Trial No.150 of 2022 by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge/ FTSC, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar is
hereby stands suspended. The appellant/applicant is
directed to be enlarged on bail forthwith, if not required
in any other case, subject to appellant executing a bond
for a sum of ₹20,000/- and furnishing one surety for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Magistrate.
17. List for hearing in due course.
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 29.10.2025
KK/SS
