PRADEEP vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010154832025

2026:UHC:9714-DB


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2025



Pradeep --Appellant


Versus
State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Presence:-
Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Legal Aid counsel for the
appellant
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G for the State.

JUDGMENT

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and
order dated 29/30.07.2025, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 47
of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Pradeep, by the court of Special
Judge (POCSO)/Additional District Judge, Dehradun. By it, the
appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 5
(n)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(“the Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of twenty years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 6 of
the Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of one month.

2. FIR in the instant case was lodged by the PW1, the
maternal aunt (mother’s younger sister of the victim). According to
it, the PW3, the victim a young girl of 13 years of age was staying
with her since her childhood because her mother had died long
back. The appellant, who is father of the victim was staying with

2

his mother. Two months’ prior to the date of the incident, the
appellant took his daughter with him and on 19.03.2022, in the
evening, he raped the victim. Somehow, the victim would manage to
escape from there. She approached the neighbours and narrated
the incident to them. The appellant followed her and tendered
apologies and requested the victim to accompany him. The victim
denied to it. On it, the FIR records that the appellant telephoned
his mother, who had gone to village at that relevant time and the
appellant told her that she should come back or else she would
hear about his death. The mother of the appellant came to his
house. There the appellant consumed poison so that he may not be
blamed for anything. Based on this FIR, Ex. P1, Chik FIR, Ex. P12
was recorded on 24.03.2022 at Police Station Doiwala, District
Dehradun and Case Crime No.103 of 2022, under Section 376 IPC
and Section 5/6 of the Act was lodged against the appellant. The
extract of General Diary Entry is Ex. P13.

3. The victim was examined under Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), on 26.03.2022. It is
Ex. P4. On 26.03.2022 itself, the victim was medically examined.
There also in the history column, the prosecution case is recorded.
Medical examination report records that the hymen was ruptured.
The Investigating Officer collected the documents pertaining to the
age of the victim, which are scholar register, Ex. P5, date of birth
certificate Ex. P6, prepared site plan, Ex. P7 and after investigation,
submitted charge sheet Ex. P11 under Sections 376 (3) IPC and
Section 5(n)/6 of the Act, against the appellant. Based on it, the
proceedings of the case were instituted.

3

4. On 20.08.2022, charge under Section 376 IPC and
Section 5 (n)/6 of the Act were framed against the appellant, to
which he denied and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined
eight witnesses, namely, PW1 the maternal aunt of the victim, PW2
Dr. Monika Shrivastav, PW3 the victim, PW4 Principal of the school
of the victim, PW5 uncle of the victim (elder brother of the father of
the victim), PW6 aunt of the victim, PW7 Sub Inspector, Rashmi
Rawat and PW8 Head Constable 145 Suvardhan.

6. After prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined
under Section 313 of the Code. According to him, he has been
falsely implicated. In his defence, the appellant examined three
witnesses, namely DW1 the maternal uncle of the victim, DW2
Chaman Lal, neighbour of the victim and DW3 grandmother of the
victm.

7. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment
and order, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as
stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved, the appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

9. Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned Legal Aid Counsel for
the appellant submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant ought to
have been acquitted of the charges framed against him, but the

4

court below has committed an error in convicting and sentencing
the appellant. He also raised the following points in his
submissions:-
(i) PW3, the victim was a troubled child who has
lost her mother at a young age. She was staying
with her maternal grandfather and thereafter,
with her maternal aunt. She was biased towards
the appellant, who happens to be her father.
(ii) Neither the first informant PW1, the aunt of the
victim nor any other witness, including her
uncle, maternal uncle has supported the
prosecution case.
(iii) As a witness, the PW3, the victim has also
admitted that the appellant would scold and beat
upon her and would discipline her, due to which
she was not happy with her father, the appellant.
(iv) DW1, the maternal uncle of the victim has
stated that PW3, the victim was in the habit of
defying the command. She would roam around
the house. She would not go to school. She
would level allegations against the neighbours,
due to which, even DW1, the maternal uncle had
altercations with the neighbours. He would
submit that it is a false case, which was lodged
by the PW3, the victim against her father.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
testimony of PW3, the victim is not that of sterling quality witness.
The sole testimony may not be the basis for conviction. Hence, the
appellant deserves acquittal.

5

11. In support of his contention, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon the principles of law, as laid down in the case
of Santosh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023:NCBHC-NAG 17605.
In this case also, the victim has leveled allegations of rape against
her father and the Court in that case has noted that the victim was
(supra)
revengeful to her father. In the case of Santosh , the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court has relied on the principles of law, as laid
down in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu and another vs. State of
NCT of Delhi, (2012) 8 SCC 21, in which case, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had occasion to discuss the impact of testimony of the
sterling witness in para 22 as follows:-
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness'"
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should,
therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of
such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value
without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the
status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be
relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a
witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of
the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at
the time when the witness makes the initial statement and
ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent
with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should
not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The
witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-
examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and
under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the
factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the
sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each
and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries
made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the
scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should
consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can
even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case
of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing
link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of
the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a
witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar
tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be
called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the
Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty
can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said

6

witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact
while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary
and material objects should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely
on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for
holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."


12. Having discussed the law on the subject and testimony
in the case of Santosh (supra) , in paras 17 and 18 of the judgment,
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed as follows:-
“17. At the cost of repetition, we may say that there is no
difficulty in basing the conviction on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix. The conviction can be based on her sole testimony
subject to inspiring full confidence of the Court. It is well settled
that the victim's evidence is to be tested like the evidence of other
witnesses. Though the statutes provide presumption however
foundational facts are to be established. When the Court is
confronted with the sole testimony of the victim, the Court must
be cautious and careful while accepting her version. Certainly, law
does not require that the prosecution shall establish the guilt with
100% certainty but it should establish the guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. If the circumstances gave rise to the reasonable possibility
of innocence then benefit of doubt belongs to the accused. The
Trial Court while relying on the victim's sole testimony has
expressed that, the victim who must have proud of her beloved
father has no reason to depose falsely. The Trial Court has also
taken aid of the marked portion of the hostile witnesses, which
was established through the evidence of the Investigating Officer.
The Trial Court appears to have much swayed against the accused
on account of relationship.
18. Considering the entire material, we find it difficult to
place implicit faith on the sole testimony of the victim to base the
conviction. It emerges that the victim was rebellant girl attracted
expulsion from the School. Admittedly, she was beaten by her
father and she accepted that, she was having revengeful attitude
against her father (accused). Besides that in duel mind she
admitted that out of revenge she has filed the report.”

7

13. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that
if victim is consistent and reliable, her sole testimony is enough for
recording the finding of guilt. It is argued that the victim has been
consistent. She is minor. She has not levelled weird allegations.
She has stated that on a particular date, at a particular time, when
the grandmother of the victim was not at home, the appellant did
commit rape on her.

14. Learned State counsel has invited the attention of the
Court to the statement of PW3, the victim, particularly, para 2 of
her statement when the court had noted that the victim is not
confident while speaking about rape. It is argued that it shows that
the victim was not such a girl who would openly level such false
allegations. Therefore, it is argued that the prosecution has proved
its case beyond reasonable doubt.

15. Before the arguments are appreciated, it would be apt
to examine as to what the witnesses have stated.

16. PW1 is the aunt of the victim, who has lodged the FIR.
In her statement, she has stated that the victim was staying with
her, but she had joined the company of the appellant on her own
and had told this witness that the appellant would beat her up. She
did not want to stay with her father, the appellant, as he would
molest her. Thereafter, according to PW1, the aunt of the victim,
she lodged report, Ex. P1. In her examination-in-chief itself, PW1,
the aunt of the victim has stated that after the information, when
she reached at the place of incident, the victim did not tell her that
the appellant did commit any rape on her. The neighbours have
told that the victim was molested. She was declared hostile.

8


17. PW2 Dr. Monika Shrivastav has medically examined
the victim on 26.03.2022. She has stated about the observations
made by her. According to her, hymen of the victim was old
ruptured. Since she had already washed her clothes, therefore, they
were not taken into custody. The pathological reports were
negative. There was no spermatozoa. She has proved her reports
Ex. P2 and P3.

18. PW4 is the Principal of the school where the victim has
studied. She has proved the date of birth record, Exs. P5 and P6.
According to her, the date of birth of the victim is 11.01.2009. In
fact, the date of birth of the victim has not been disputed. The
appellant is father of the victim. He is in better position to tell the
date of birth of the victim.

19. PW5 is the uncle (elder brother of the father of the
victim) of the victim. He has also not supported the prosecution
case. According to him, the victim did not tell anything to him or
his wife.

20. PW6 is the aunt of the victim. She has also not
supported the prosecution case. She was also declared hostile.

21. PW7 Sub Inspector, Rashmi Rawat is the Investigating
Officer. She has stated about the steps taken by her during
investigation and proved the site plan Ex.P7. She has proved the
documents given for recording of the statements of the victim,
which are Exs. P8 and P9. According to her, the appellant was

9

arrested by her, of which memo, Ex. P10 was prepared. After
investigation, she filed charge sheet, Ex. P11.

22. PW8 Head Constable 145 Suvardhan is the General
Diary writer. He has proved the chik FIR, Ex.P12 and extract of
General Diary, Ex. P13.

23. DW1 is the maternal uncle of the victim. He has not
supported the case of the victim. According to him, the victim
would quite often leave the house. She was in very bad company.
She was staying with her maternal aunt. There also she would
leave the house. According to DW1, the maternal uncle of the
victim, the appellant did not commit any offence with the victim.
The victim is habitual liar. Multiple times she had leveled
allegations against the neighbours of this witness, due to which he
had quarrel with his neighbours also.

24. DW2 Chaman Lal is neighbour of the victim. He would
say that the victim was in the habit of roaming here and there. She
did not go to school and whenever the appellant, the father of the
victim would scold her, she would start fighting with her father, the
appellant.

25. DW3 is the grandmother of the victim. She has also not
supported the prosecution case. According to her, they would send
the victim to school, but she would not go there. Whenever, the
appellant would stop her from moving out of the house, she would
take up fight with her father, the appellant and would claim that if
she is not send with her uncle (mausa) and aunt (mausi), she
would implicate the appellant.

10

26. PW3 is the victim. She tells that her mother is not
alive. She was grown up in her maternal grandfather’s house and
after his death, her maternal aunt took care of her. During Holi,
according to this witness, she came to her father’ house and on
that date, in the night, the appellant raped her. In para 2 of her
statement, PW3, the victim has stated that when the appellant
committed rape, he vomitted also. The victim ran away to reveal the
incident to her uncle (the appellant’s elder brother). In the process,
the appellant wanted to stop her, but anyhow she went to her uncle
and narrated the story to him and there at that spot, the appellant
told that she was lying. Thereafter, she says that the appellant did
telephone his mother and told her to return as early as possible
and thereafter, her grandmother returned out of fear. She has
stated about the statement given to the Magistrate under Section
164 of the Code, which is Ex. P4. She also tells that she was
medically examined.

27. As stated, except PW3, there is no other witness, who
has supported the prosecution case. The first informant, who is the
aunt of the victim has not supported the case entirely, though she
has proved the FIR, Ex. P1. PW5 and PW6, who are uncle and aunt
of the victim, respectively have not supported the prosecution case.
Not only this, DW1 is her maternal uncle and DW3 is her
grandmother, both have not supported the prosecution case. Now
the question is, whether the testimony of PW3, the victim may be
termed as a sterling witness, which may be the sole basis of
conviction or does it fall short of sterling witness which may require
corroboration in material particulars so as to bring home the guilt
of the appellant?

11

28. In her cross examination, PW3, the victim has stated
that the appellant would stop her from leaving house. He would
scold her and she never liked it. In para 3 of her cross examination
done on 04.05.2023, PW3, the victim has stated categorically about
it. In para 10 of her cross examination recorded on 04.05.2023, the
victim has further stated that she never liked her father, the
appellant since her childhood because her maternal grandfather
has told her much about the appellant. She further says that her
maternal grandfather has told her that since the victim was
separated from her mother by the appellant, she was quite
unhappy with the appellant. In paras 8 and 9 of her cross-
examination recorded on 04.05.2023, the victim has further stated
that once she has left the house and ran away to Bihar.

29. It may be noted that PW3, the victim was a young girl
of 14 years when she deposed before the court. These factual
narrations, as stated by PW3, the victim make it abundantly clear
that she was a troubled child. She was not staying at one place.
She was with her maternal grandfather, where she was grown up
for a while and after his death, she was brought up by her maternal
aunt and some day before the date of incident, the appellant took
her in his house, where PW3, the victim says that at 09:00 in the
night, she was raped.

30. The victim has also proved her statement recorded
under Section 164 of the Code, which is Ex. P4. In order to examine
the trustworthiness of the testimony of PW3, the victim, the
attending circumstances need to be seen. According to PW3, the
victim, the appellant was staying in two room house alongwith his
mother. The incident allegedly took place at 09:00 p.m. on

12

19.03.2022. The question is where was DW3, the grandmother of
the victim at the relevant point of time? The FIR records that DW3
the grandmother of the victim had gone to the village, whereas in
her statement under Section 164 of the Code, PW3, the victim tells
that her grandmother had gone for check up of her eyes. In court
as PW3, the victim has not stated as to where was her grandmother
at the relevant point of time? If the victim had gone to village, which
was that village? Where was she? The Investigating Officer has not
examined DW3 the grandmother of the victim, who definitely was a
very important witness. If the grandmother of the victim was away
from her house, her testimony could have been tested by examining
those persons, to whom she met on the date of incident at the
relevant point of time. But, it was not done. The testimony of PW3,
the victim is not consistent about the absence of DW3, her
grandmother. As stated, in the FIR it is recorded that the
grandmother of the victim had gone to the village, whereas, in her
statement under Section 164 of the Code, PW3, the victim says that
she had gone at the relevant point of time for check up of her eyes
and in court she has not said where her grandmother had gone at
the relevant point of time.

31. There is another aspect to it. In court, PW3, the victim
says that after the incident, the appellant called DW3, the
grandmother of the victim and told her to return at the earliest and
then in para 2, last 3 lines, PW3 the victim tells that her
grandmother returned out of fear. The question is what was the
fear?

32. If the testimony of PW3, the victim is examined as a
whole, she cannot be categorized as a sterling witness. Admittedly,

13

she was not happy with her father for variety of reasons which she
has stated. Her testimony may not be a sole basis of conviction. It
requires corroboration.

33. According to PW3, the victim, after the incident, she
narrated the incident to her uncle, who has been examined as PW4,
but he has not supported the prosecution case. Not only this, even
her maternal aunt has not supported the prosecution case. Her
grandmother has not supported the prosecution case. There is no
corroboration to the testimony of PW3, the victim. We are of the
considered view that it would not be safe to base conviction on the
sole testimony of PW3, the victim.

34. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view
that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant deserves to be
acquitted of the charge levelled against him Accordingly, the appeal
deserves to be allowed.

35. The appeal is allowed.

36. The impugned judgment and order dated
29/30.07.2025, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 47 of 2022,
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Pradeep, by the court of Special Judge
(POCSO)/Additional District Judge, Dehradun is set aside.

37. Appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections
376, IPC and Section 5 (n)/6 of the Act.

14

38. The appellant is in custody. Let he be released
forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

39. The appellant shall furnish a personal bond and two
sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned under Section 437 A of the Code within one month from
today.

40. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court
Record be sent to the court concerned.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
28.10.2026


Jitendra