[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mahesh Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 16 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1737
Judgment Reserved on: 26.02.2026
Judgment Pronounced on: 16.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2025
Mahesh Singh ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Presence: Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Gaurav Pawar, learned counsel for the private Respondent.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant
Mahesh Singh challenging the judgment and order dated 19.09.2025
passed by the Court of Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act)/Sessions
Judge, Champawat in Special Session Trial No.12 of 2024 (State v.
Mahesh Singh), arising out of FIR No.01/2024, under Section 354 IPC
and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act,
Police Station Reetha Sahib, District Champawat.
2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for
offences punishable under Section 354 IPC and Sections 7/8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)
and was awarded four years' simple imprisonment with fine of
₹25,000/- under each head, with default sentence as recorded in the
trial court judgment.
3. The State's case, in brief, is that a written report was submitted
by the father of the victim at Police Station Reetha Sahib, District
1
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2025------Mahesh Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1737
Champawat stating that on 01.02.2024 at about 3:00 PM, his daughter
(victim), aged about 17 years, was going from his house to another
house for some work.
4. It was alleged in the report that the accused/appellant, a resident
of the same village, obtained the victim's phone number through the
complainant's younger son and thereafter called the victim, stating that
he required her at a place on the pretext of getting some form signed.
It was further alleged that the accused intercepted the victim on the
way, attempted to entice her by offering ₹500/-, asked her to
accompany him towards bushes, and upon refusal, caught hold of her
hand and allegedly committed acts amounting to molestation.
5. It was further stated that the victim returned home crying and
narrated the incident to her grandmother and, later, to her family
members. It was also stated that when the complainant went to the
accused's house, the accused was not found there.
6. On the basis of the said written report dated 02.02.2024, FIR No.
01/2024 was registered at the concerned police station and
investigation commenced. After investigation, the police submitted the
charge-sheet and the matter proceeded before the Special Court.
7. Charges were framed against the appellant for offences
punishable under Section 354 IPC and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act.
During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and proved the
2
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2025------Mahesh Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1737
documents exhibited in accordance with the trial court record; the
statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and
the defence examined one witness.
8. Upon conclusion of trial, the Special Court convicted and
sentenced the appellant by judgment/order dated 19.09.2025, which is
the subject matter of the present appeal.
9. In the appellate proceedings, the High Court admitted the appeal
and, vide order dated 09.10.2025, suspended the execution of sentence
during pendency of the appeal and granted bail to the appellant.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned
judgment and order of conviction are contrary to the evidence on
record and settled principles of criminal law. It is contended that the
entire case of the State rests upon the testimony of the victim and that
her deposition before the trial Court does not support the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged. Counsel pointed out that in her
substantive evidence before the Court, the victim stated that the
appellant abused her and threw a ₹500 note in the bushes and
thereafter ran away. It is argued that she did not clearly depose that the
appellant caught hold of her hand with intent to outrage her modesty
or committed sexual assault within the meaning of Section 7 of the
POCSO Act. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the foundational
3
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2025------Mahesh Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1737
ingredients of Section 354 IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act
have not been proved through reliable substantive evidence.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court
erred in placing reliance upon the statement of the victim recorded
under Section 164 CrPC. It is argued that such statement is not
substantive evidence and can be used only for the purposes of
corroboration or contradiction. When the victim's deposition before
the Court does not fully support the allegations contained in the earlier
statement, conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of such
prior statement in the absence of independent and convincing
corroboration.
13. It is also contended that there is no eye-witness to the alleged
occurrence and that the recovery of ₹500/- from the bushes does not
establish the commission of sexual assault or use of criminal force.
Learned counsel emphasized that the burden lies upon the State to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that any reasonable doubt
must ensure to the benefit of the accused. On these grounds, it is
prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted.
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the
impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court has
correctly appreciated the evidence on record. It is contended that the
testimony of the victim, read as a whole, establishes that the appellant
intercepted her and engaged in conduct amounting to molestation.
4
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2025------Mahesh Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1737
15. Learned counsel submits that minor inconsistencies or variations
in expression cannot dilute the core of the prosecution case,
particularly in cases involving offences against a child. It is further
argued that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. clearly supports the prosecution version and lends assurance to
her testimony. The recovery of ₹500/- from the spot, according to the
State, corroborates the occurrence and strengthens the prosecution
case.
16. Learned counsel for the State submits that the law does not
require independent corroboration in every case of sexual offence and
that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if it
inspires confidence. It is contended that the learned trial Court, having
had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, found
the evidence credible and recorded a reasoned conviction.
Accordingly, it is urged that the appeal be dismissed and the
conviction and sentence be affirmed.
17. Upon a careful and independent re-appreciation of the entire
evidence available on record, this Court has examined whether the
findings of guilt recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge are
sustainable in law. The case of the State originates from the written
report lodged on 02.02.2024 alleging that on 01.02.2024 at about 3:00
PM, the victim, aged about 17 years, was intercepted on the way by
the appellant, who allegedly caught hold of her hand, attempted to take
her towards bushes on the pretext of getting a form signed, and offered
₹500/-. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 01 of 2024 was registered
and, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed for offences under
5
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2025------Mahesh Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1737
Section 354 IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The learned trial
Court, upon conclusion of trial, convicted the appellant.
18. The conviction rests substantially upon the testimony of the
victim. It is true that the evidence of the victim, if reliable and
trustworthy, can form the sole basis of conviction even without
corroboration. However, the testimony must be clear, consistent and of
such quality that it inspires full confidence of the Court. In the present
case, a perusal of the deposition of the victim before the trial Court
reveals that she stated that the appellant abused her, threw a ₹500 note
in the bushes and ran away.
19. The emphasis in her substantive evidence is on verbal abuse and
the act of throwing currency. The essential allegation forming the
gravamen of the charge, namely use of criminal force with intent to
outrage modesty and commission of sexual assault within the meaning
of Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act, does not emerge from her
deposition before the Court with the same clarity and force as alleged
in the FIR.
20. The State has not examined any eye-witness to the alleged
occurrence. Admittedly, the incident is said to have taken place in a
village setting during daytime. Yet, no independent witness has been
produced to corroborate the allegation of physical assault or
molestation. The recovery of the ₹500 note from the bushes, even if
accepted, does not by itself establish that the appellant used criminal
force or committed sexual assault. The recovery, at best, corroborates
6
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2025------Mahesh Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1737
the fact that currency was found at the spot; it does not conclusively
prove the manner in which the alleged incident occurred.
21. It further appears that reliance has been placed on the statement
of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Such a statement is
not substantive evidence and can be used only for the purpose of
corroboration or contradiction. The substantive evidence is the
testimony given before the Court. Where there is a material departure
between the version in the earlier statement and the version in Court,
the Court must evaluate whether the evidence as a whole is sufficient
to sustain conviction.
22. In the present case, the victim's testimony in Court does not
fully and unequivocally support the prosecution version in respect of
the essential ingredients of the offences charged. In the absence of
strong corroboration, it would be unsafe to base conviction solely on
the earlier statement.
23. The State was also required to establish, beyond reasonable
doubt, each ingredient of the offences under Section 354 IPC and
Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The evidence on record does not
convincingly demonstrate the use of criminal force with the requisite
intent, nor does it satisfactorily establish an act constituting "sexual
assault" as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. In criminal
jurisprudence, the burden never shifts from the State, and any
reasonable doubt arising from inconsistencies, omissions or lack of
corroboration must operate in favour of the accused.
7
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2025------Mahesh Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1737
24. The learned trial Court appears to have placed considerable
weight on the earlier statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and other
surrounding circumstances but has not sufficiently addressed the
impact of the victim's deposition before the Court and the absence of
independent corroboration. Where the testimony in Court does not
fully support the allegations forming the basis of conviction, and the
case rests primarily on such testimony, the Court must extend the
benefit of doubt.
ORDER
25. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that the State has not been able to prove the guilt of
the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record does
not attain the degree of certainty required to uphold conviction for
offences under Section 354 IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act.
Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are
unsustainable.
26. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
27. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence
are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
16.03.2026
Arti
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2025------Mahesh Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
