Padam Singh @ Padmi vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4246 of 2017
Padam Singh @ Padmi
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Nazia Ilyas, Sarwar Ali Siddique
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
AFR
Judgment Reserved on 25.09.2026
26.10.2026
Judgment Delivered on

Court No. - 88
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Jhamman Ram,
learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order
dated 20.02.2016 passed by the learned Fast Track Court No.
2/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in Sessions Trial No. 987 of
2014 (State v. Padam Singh alias Padmi), whereby the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to five
years’ rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 5, 000/-, and, in
default of payment of fine, to undergo six months’ additional
imprisonment. The appellant has further been convicted for the offence
under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous
imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 10, 000/-, and, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo one year’s additional imprisonment. Lastly,
the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC
and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of
Rs. 20, 000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo two years’
additional imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
3. The prosecution case originates from the written complaint dated
08.04.2014 (Ex. Ka-1), submitted by the informant/complainant, Ballu
alias Balbir, and scribed by Kabool Singh. The complainant submitted the

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
2
written complaint at Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad. On
the basis of the said complaint, a check FIR (Ex. Ka-4) was registered
against the named accused, Padam Singh alias Padmi, under Sections 363
and 366 IPC.
4. It was stated in the complaint that the complainant's niece, aged about
16 years, was residing with him and pursuing her studies. On the night of
30/31.03.2014, the complainant had gone to attend a Jagran at the house
of Rishi. When he returned home at about 4: 00 a.m., he found that his
niece was missing. Upon making inquiries, he came to know that during
the night, Padam Singh had enticed his niece away from the house with an
ill intention. When the complainant went to search for her at the house of
the accused, he found his brother, Raghuraj, his sister, Ramchandri, his
brother-in-law, Om Prakash, and his niece, Shivani, present there.
However, despite being fully aware of the facts, they did not disclose any
information to him.
5. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against
Padam Singh alias Padmi under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.
6. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on
17.04.2014, wherein she specifically stated that she was 16 years of age.
She further stated that the accused, Padam Singh, had misled her by
telling her that he was having marital discord with his wife. He asked her
to accompany him and assured her that he would marry her. Having been
induced by these assurances, she accompanied him to Faridabad at about
3: 00 a.m. on 31.03.2014. At Faridabad, Padam Singh rented a house,
where they began residing together. The accused represented her as his
wife and lived with her accordingly. He had sexual intercourse with her
and committed rape upon her every day. Whenever she refused to engage
in sexual intercourse, he told her that she was his wife and she now
belonged to him. The accused thus repeatedly induced her to submit to
sexual intercourse by falsely representing that she was his wife.
7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Smt. Sumitra as P.W.1,
Ballu alias Balbir as P.W.2, the victim, as P.W.3, Sub-Inspector Praveen
Kumar Sharma as P.W.4, and Dr. Prachi Pal as P.W.5.

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
3
8. Smt. Sumitra, P.W.1, stated in her examination-in-chief that the
incident had taken place on the night of 31.03.2014. She, along with her
family members, had gone to attend a Jagran at Rishi’s house, in which
she had participated. Her granddaughter was alone at home when the
accused, Padam Singh, enticed her and abducted her. At the time of the
incident, her granddaughter, the victim, was a minor. The accused, Padam
Singh, had already been pursuing her. The Investigating Officer had
visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan at the instance
of the informant. He had recorded her statement and also made inquiries
from her. She stated that the incident was true and that she was deposing
truthfully. They had searched for the victim at various places. Out of
concern for their honour, they had continued searching for her discreetly.
They had gone wherever they received information regarding her
whereabouts. When the victim could not be found, her son, Ballu, lodged
a report regarding her abduction at Police Station Muradnagar. She
identified the accused, who was present in Court, as the same person who
had taken away her granddaughter.
9. In her cross-examination, P.W.-1 stated that victim had been found
seven days after leaving her house. Padam had taken the victim away. She
came to know about this because the victim had earlier gone away with
Padam Singh for two to three months. She had not given any statement to
the police. Padam had abducted the victim and taken her away; she had
not accompanied him voluntarily. When the victim had earlier been taken
away by Padam, a search had been conducted for her. Ramesh and
Padam’s sister had also been asked to search for the victim. The victim
had been brought back by persons from Sihani, and Padam had also
accompanied them. During the search for the victim, she had not visited
any police station. When they had returned home from the Jagran, the
doors of the house had been found open. She had not shown the police the
room in which the victim used to sleep.
10. She has further stated that when the victim could not be found despite
the search, her husband had gone to Padam’s house, where Padam’s
brother had been found. The victim had been found 17–18 days after
leaving the house. They had brought the victim home from the police
station. The police had visited their house. Om Prakash was Padam’s

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
4
brother-in-law, and Ramesh was also Padam’s brother-in-law. Om
Prakash was a resident of Village Sihani. She could not say whether Om
Prakash had brought the victim back. The victim had been found at the
police station. When the victim had left the house, she had not been
present there. However, she had visited the police station. Om Prakash did
not visit their house.
11. Her elder son, along with his children, had not accompanied her to the
Jagran, as they had been at his in-laws’ house. Padam had taken the
victim away on two occasions. At that time, the victim had been studying
in Class XI and had been attending school. The victim had not gone to
school before the Jagran. Ramesh’s children had also attended the Jagran.
She did not know whether Padam had been present at the Jagran.
12. The victim had one sister named Khushi, who had been living with
her. The victim had been residing with her parents at Raispur and had
frequently stayed with them. The victim had not gone to Raispur at the
time of the incident, although she sometimes visited their house. Khushi
also used to visit Raispur. Kabul had already been married when she had
solemnised the marriage of her daughter Kavita with him.
13. She had counselled the victim, but the victim had left despite being
advised not to do so. She stated that a person could sometimes understand
what was in another person’s mind, but if something had become firmly
embedded in that person’s mind, there was little that could be done about
it.
14. She denied the suggestion that there had been any dispute with
Ramesh’s wife, Sudesh. She also denied the suggestion that the victim
had left of her own free will. She further denied the suggestion that they
had arranged the victim’s marriage within Padam’s family and, upon
Padam’s refusal, had falsely implicated him in the case. She denied the
suggestion that Kabul Singh had an improper intention towards the
victim. She stated that the victim had already been married to Balbir. She
also denied the suggestions that her son, Ballu, had an improper intention
towards the victim and that she was giving false testimony.
15. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Balku Oram Vs. State of

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
5
and relied on judgment in
Odisha; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 802 Ram Das
and others Vs. State of Maharashtra; (2007) 2 SCC 170 , if there is
delay in lodging of the FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., when not fatal.
Mere delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution, if reasonably
and satisfactorily explained in light of the surrounding facts and
circumstances.
16. It is held by the Supreme Court in
Ravi Kumar Singh Malhotra Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh; 2026 Live Law (SC) 844; 2026 INSC 899 ,
where there is delay in lodging of FIR and delay is inordinate and
unexplained delay of five days in lodging the FIR, even after the
surviving witness was rescued and had allegedly disclosed the identity of
the accused to the I.O, while bodies were already recovered, casts serious
doubts on the prosecution case, such unjustified delay in setting the
criminal law into motion undermines the credibility of the investigation
and opens the door to embellishments.
17. The statement of Ballu alias Balbir was recorded as P.W.2 on
29.07.2015. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the victim was his
niece. She was 16 years of age at the time of the incident and was a
minor. She was residing and studying in his village, Morta. On
30.03.2014, his entire family had gone to attend a Jagran at a
neighbouring house. When he returned home at about 4: 00 a.m., he did
not find the victim there. They searched for her and made inquiries,
whereupon they came to know that the accused, Padam Singh, who was
present in Court, was a married man and the father of three children, and
had enticed his niece away. They made extensive efforts to trace her and
also made inquiries from the relatives of the accused, namely, Om
Prakash and Shivani, but they did not disclose anything. Thereafter, he
got the written complaint drafted by Kabool Singh, signed it, and
submitted it at the police station. He identified the said complaint, which
was marked as Exhibit Ka-1.
18. After the registration of the case, the police took necessary action and
recovered his niece, the victim after 15 days. The police recorded his
statement as well as the statement of the victim. Her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C.. was also recorded by the court. On 17.04.2014, she

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
6
was handed over to his family. Even before the incident in question, the
accused had been keeping an evil eye on his niece. Approximately two
months before the present incident, the accused, Padam Singh, had also
abducted his niece/victim. However, due to social pressure and on
account of family considerations, they had not lodged any report against
Padam Singh on that occasion. The incident dated 30.03.2014 involving
the accused, Padam Singh, was the second such incident. Accordingly, he
got the written complaint, which is available on the record as Exhibit Ka-
1, prepared and lodged the case at the police station.
19. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that his father had died on
09.03.2015. On the night of 30/31.03.2014, he had gone to attend a
Jagran at Ambedkar Park along with his family members. His niece and
sister, Reena, had returned home earlier, but he did not know the exact
time of their return. His father, who was unable to walk due to a problem
with his legs, had remained at home. His niece had been living with him
since childhood for her education. He was unmarried, and his sister,
Reena, was employed in the Delhi Police. His niece's younger sister,
Khushi, also lived with him, whereas her two brothers, Vikas and Vishal,
lived elsewhere. He stated that his niece had passed Class XII at the time
of the incident, while Khushi was studying in Class VI. However, he did
not know whether his niece had attended school shortly before the
incident and stated that she generally did not attend school.
20. P.W-2 has further stated that he and his family members returned
home at about 4: 00 a.m. He did not know in which room his niece and
Reena had slept. His father had been sleeping in the verandah. His house
had three rooms on the upper floor and a verandah on the ground floor.
There were two gates providing access to the road, one of which was open
when he returned home. The boundary wall adjoining the main gate was
approximately 8–9 feet high. He had not informed the police about the
room in which his niece slept. In the morning, he came to know that his
niece was missing. He searched for her among his relatives and suspected
Padam Singh because he had allegedly taken his niece away on an earlier
occasion, approximately two or three months before the present incident.
No report had been lodged regarding the earlier incident due to family
considerations, and his niece had subsequently returned home.

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
7
21. He stated that the FIR was lodged on 08.04.2014, approximately eight
days after his niece went missing. The written complaint had been
prepared by Kabul Singh. He initially stated that it was written at the
police station but subsequently stated that it was written outside the police
station. He had given his statement to the police at his house. He further
stated that Padam Singh was related to him through his extended family.
He had informed Ramesh, the son of his paternal uncle, about his niece's
disappearance. He had no visiting relations with Padam Singh but
maintained relations with Ramesh and his family. He stated that the police
had recovered his niece and informed the family accordingly. He first saw
her at Muradnagar Police Station, where Padam Singh was also present in
police custody. His niece was not handed over to the family on the same
day but was entrusted to their custody two or three days later pursuant to
the court's order. He further stated that on the earlier occasion when his
niece had gone away with Padam Singh, the family had not known that
Padam Singh was married and had three or four children. He had advised
his niece against marrying Padam Singh, explaining that he was the father
of four children and was related to her as her maternal uncle. At the time
of his deposition, his niece was 17 years old. He was uneducated and
could not state her date of birth. He also did not know the exact bus stand
from which the police had recovered her. The police had obtained the
telephone numbers of his niece's maternal grandmother, maternal aunt,
and mother from their house.
22. The victim (P.W.3), in her examination-in-chief recorded on
19.08.2015, stated that at the time of the incident, she was studying in
Class XI and was 16 years of age. She was residing with her maternal
uncle, Bablu alias Balbir. The accused, Padam Singh, used to cast an evil
eye on her and was looking for an opportunity to abduct her.
23. She further stated that the accused, Padam Singh, was distantly related
to her as a maternal uncle and, therefore, she was well acquainted with
him. He used to lure her into a romantic relationship by giving her false
assurances of marriage and was looking for an opportunity to abduct her
by enticing and misleading her. She stated that on the night of
30/31.03.2014, all the family members had gone to attend a Devi Jagran
in the neighbourhood. Only her ailing maternal grandfather, her maternal

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
8
aunt, and she were present at home. Her maternal aunt had gone to sleep
in her room. During the night, the accused, Padam Singh, came to their
house and attempted to abduct her under the pretext of marriage. When
she resisted, he gagged her, made her sit on his motorcycle, and took her
to Faridabad, where he confined her in a room. He did not allow her to
meet anyone and committed rape upon her every day. He also used to tell
her that she was his wife.
24. She further stated that the accused, Padam Singh, kept her with him
for approximately 12–13 days. Thereafter, he brought her to the Duhai
bus stand to ascertain whether the police had registered any report against
them. At that time, the police arrived and took both the accused and the
victim into their custody. The police subsequently got her medically
examined at MMG Hospital. She stated that her statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. was read over to her, and she affirmed its contents to
be correct word for word.
25. She also stated that her High School Certificate for the year 2013 was
available on the record, wherein her date of birth was mentioned as
03.03.1998. She affirmed that the said date of birth was correct and that
her photograph was affixed to the certificate, which was marked as
Exhibit Ka-2.
26. She identified the supurdginama dated 17.04.2014, bearing the
signatures of her parents, Kabool Singh and Kavita, as well as her own
signature. The said supurdginama was marked as Exhibit Ka-3.
27. She categorically stated that it was the accused, Padam Singh, who
had abducted her and committed rape upon her.
28. The victim (P.W.3), in her cross-examination, stated that she was
pursuing her studies and was studying for a B.Tech. degree. She had
completed Class XII as a private candidate. Her date of birth was
03.03.1998. She stated that the incident had taken place on the night of
30/31 March, although she was uncertain about the year and stated that it
might have been 2013. At the time of the incident, she was studying at
Guru Nanak Girls Inter College. After passing Class X, she had taken
admission in Class XI in 2013 but had not appeared in the Class XI

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
9
examinations, having voluntarily discontinued her studies. She stated that
she was 16 years and 27 days old at the time of the incident. She had last
attended school in September preceding the incident and had not attended
school on the date of the incident.
29. She further stated that at the time of the incident, her parents were not
residing with her and she was staying at the house of her maternal
grandparents. She had no knowledge of directions and was unable to
indicate the directions with reference to the geographical position of her
house. There were two exit doors in the house, one opening towards the
verandah and the other towards their vacant plot. She stated that she had
not gone to attend the Jagran organised at the house of Rishi in the
neighbourhood on the date of the incident. Her maternal grandmother,
younger maternal aunt, and maternal uncle, Bablu, had gone to attend the
Jagran, whereas she, her maternal grandfather, Ram Karan, and her
maternal aunt, Reena, had remained at home. The house consisted of three
rooms on the ground floor and three rooms on the first floor, with a
staircase connecting the floors. At the time of the incident, she had been
sleeping in the verandah on the ground floor, her maternal grandfather
had been sleeping near her, and her maternal aunt had been sleeping in a
separate room. She did not possess a mobile phone, nor had she possessed
one at the time of the incident.
30. She stated that the accused, Padam Singh, was distantly related to her
as a maternal uncle, although she did not remember when she had first
met him. She had gone out with him through the main gate and not
through the door of a room. Padam Singh had knocked on the gate, and
she alone had awakened to open it. No other member of the household
had awakened. She had accompanied him on a motorcycle, and no other
person had been present with him when she opened the gate. She did not
remember the exact time at which she had left home with him.
31. She further stated that she had accompanied Padam Singh on an
earlier occasion and had stayed with him for one or two days, but not for a
week. On that occasion, she had gone with him from her school and not
from her home. She had accompanied him during the daytime and had
returned during the daytime. At her insistence, he had dropped her outside

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
10
her village. She had not informed her school friends or any other person
about that incident. They had encountered members of the public during
the journey, but she had not disclosed anything to anyone. They had not
gone to a restaurant to eat. She stated that Padam Singh had taken her to a
hotel on that occasion, but she did not remember the name of the city in
which the hotel was situated. She had not known at that time that Padam
Singh was married and had children; she had come to know about his
marital status later. She further stated that she had never visited Village
Dera Machhar, although Padam Singh was a resident of Village Machhar
Dairy.
32. With regard to the incident in question, she stated that after taking
admission in Class XI, she had paid the school fees for a few months,
while some fees remained unpaid. She did not remember the year in
which she had passed Class VIII. She had not informed anyone before
leaving home with Padam Singh, nor had she telephoned her family after
the incident. She denied the suggestion that she had telephoned Padam
Singh at about 12: 00 midnight on the date of the incident using the
telephone kept at her house. She also denied the suggestions that she had
seen him by peeping from the roof of her house or that when she had
peeped over the wall, he had caught hold of her hand and pulled her
towards him.
33. She stated that immediately after she had opened the gate on the night
of the incident, Padam Singh had gagged her by pressing his hand over
her mouth. Consequently, she had been unable to inform anyone at home.
He had asked her to accompany him, but when she refused, he threatened
to kill her family members. She had not initially accompanied him to
attend the Jagran. She further stated that it had been nighttime when they
left home and that daylight had appeared by the time they reached
Faridabad. Padam Singh had told her that the city was Faridabad, and she
had seen a signboard bearing that name. They had travelled on a
motorcycle, and only the two of them had been on it. During the journey,
they had encountered several people and vehicles, but she had not noticed
whether they had passed any police outpost or police station. She had not
attempted to ascertain where Padam Singh was taking her.

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
11
34. She further stated that Padam Singh had taken a room on rent in
Faridabad, where they had stayed for approximately 11–12 days. They
had not stayed in a hotel. The room was situated on the ground floor, and
she did not know whether there were other rooms in the building. Padam
Singh generally remained in the room during the daytime and did not go
anywhere. There was no toilet or bathroom inside the room, and they had
to go outside to use those facilities. When she went outside, Padam Singh
remained standing at the gate, and when he went outside, she remained
inside the room. She had not attempted to escape when he went to use the
toilet or bathroom because he used to bolt the door from outside. He used
to bring food from outside, and they had never gone together to a hotel to
eat. She stated that she had not raised an alarm during the 11–12 days
because Padam Singh had kept her under fear and had threatened and
intimidated her. She admitted that she had not disclosed this fact to the
learned Magistrate.
35. She stated that she had given a statement to the police and had
informed them that Padam Singh was her distant relative. She had also
told the police about his promise to marry her but had not mentioned
anything about going out for excursions. She further stated that she had
been forcibly taken away from her home by Padam Singh. She denied the
suggestion that Padam Singh had not had sexual intercourse with her. She
stated that while staying in Faridabad, she had worn bichhiyas (toe rings),
bangles, and sindoor in the parting of her hair. When the police
apprehended them, she had removed the toe rings and bangles of her own
accord, without anyone instructing her to do so. She had handed them
over to her family members and not to the police. The police had been
present when she handed over those articles to her family members. She
did not know whether the room in Faridabad belonged to Padam Singh or
to one of his relatives, although she had been told that it had been taken
on rent.
36. She further stated that her statement had been recorded by the police
and that she had also given a statement before the learned Magistrate. She
admitted that she had given the statement to the police in the manner in
which it had been put to her. On the day of their apprehension, she had
remained at the police station and had been produced before the learned

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
12
Magistrate after two or three days. After her apprehension, she and her
family members had remained at the police station during the daytime,
and her family members used to return home in the evening. She had
never returned to school after the incident. She also stated that Padam
Singh had not telephoned her on the day she had left home.
37. She categorically denied the suggestions that she had no objection to
living with Padam Singh as his wife or that she was making the statement
under pressure from her family members.
38. It is an undisputed fact that the victim was a minor at the time of the
alleged incident, being approximately 16 years of age, as established by
her school certificate. It is also an admitted fact that the accused-appellant
took the victim to Faridabad, where he kept her for approximately 12–13
days, and that she was subsequently recovered on 13.04.2014.
39. The accused-appellant was a major, married man and the father of
three children. He was also a distant maternal relative of the victim. In
view of the victim’s minority, the question of consent does not arise, as
her consent, even if alleged, would not constitute a valid defence in law.
The circumstances further indicate that the accused-appellant was in a
position of dominance vis-a-vis the victim, which cannot be overlooked
while appreciating the evidence on record. His conduct, particularly in
taking the minor victim away from her place of residence and keeping her
in confinement for 12–13 days, assumes significance in determining his
culpability.
40. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt.
, held in paragraph 22 that it is
of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192
settled law that a woman who is the victim of sexual assault is not an
accomplice to the crime but a victim of another person's lust. The victim
stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness because she suffers
emotional injury.
41. It has been held in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash
, and reiterated in
Kewal Chand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658 State of U.P. v.
Pappu @ Yunus and Another, (2005) 3 SCC 594, and Vijay alias
, that courts must remain
Chinee v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
13
conscious of their responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases
involving sexual molestation.
42. Rape is not merely a physical assault; rather, it often affects the entire
personality of the victim. The perpetrator degrades the very soul of a
helpless woman. Therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be
appreciated in the context of the entire case. In such cases, the non-
examination of other witnesses may not constitute a serious infirmity in
the prosecution case, particularly where those witnesses had not seen the
commission of the offence.
43. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh,
, held that while evaluating evidence, courts must
(1996) 2 SCC 384
remain conscious of the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting
woman would ordinarily come forward to make a humiliating statement
against her honour, such as one involving the commission of rape upon
her.
44. Similarly, in Wahid Khan v. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 9 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a girl or woman in Indian society
would not ordinarily make such allegations against a person without
cause, being fully aware of the social repercussions. If the allegation is
found to be false, she may face social stigma and ostracism. Therefore,
unless an offence has actually been committed, a woman would generally
be reluctant even to disclose an incident that may adversely affect her
reputation and social standing.
45. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Javed Masood v. State of
, wherein it was held that where a
Rajasthan, (2010) 3 SCC 538
prosecution witness makes a statement and is not declared hostile, the
statement is to be evaluated in accordance with the settled principles
governing the appreciation of evidence.
46. Sub-Inspector Praveen Kumar Sharma was examined as P.W.-4. He
stated that he had conducted the investigation, inspected the place of
occurrence, and prepared the site plan, which was proved as Exhibit Ka-6.
On 13.04.2014, he took the accused, Padam Singh, and the victim into
custody at the Duhai bus stand, recorded their statements in the case

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
14
diary, and got the victim medically examined at a government hospital.
He further stated that the victim underwent an X-ray examination on
15.04.2014 for age determination, and her age certificate was obtained on
16.04.2014. On 17.04.2014, her statement was recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C., and she was handed over to her family members under a
supurdginama, proved as Exhibit Ka-3. On 04.06.2014, he received the
pathology report and supplementary medical report and recorded them in
the case diary.
47. During the investigation, he obtained the victim’s school certificate
from N.K.S. Memorial Convent Junior High School, which recorded her
date of birth as 03.03.1998, establishing that she was approximately 16
years old at the time of the incident. After completing the investigation,
he submitted Charge-Sheet No. 152 of 2014 against Padam Singh alias
Padmi under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC. The charge-sheet was
proved as Exhibit Ka-7. He affirmed that the investigation had been
conducted fairly and truthfully.
48. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the
Investigating Officer had not conducted a proper investigation has been
considered in the light of the evidence available on record. It is a settled
principle of law that any illegality, irregularity, or deficiency in the
investigation does not, by itself, render the prosecution case unreliable.
The evidence adduced during the trial must be independently scrutinised
to ascertain whether the charges against the accused have been established
beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of
, held that even if
Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715
an investigation is illegal or suspicious, the remaining evidence must be
scrutinised independently of its effect on the investigation.
49. Otherwise, the criminal trial would descend to a level where the
Investigating Officer would dominate the proceedings. The Court must
retain predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials, and the
administration of criminal justice should not be made a casualty of the
wrongs committed by investigating officers.
50. In other words, if the Court is convinced that the testimony of a
witness to the occurrence is truthful, it may act upon that testimony

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
15
notwithstanding the suspicious role of the Investigating Officer.
51. Similarly, in Jamuna Chaudhari & Ors vs State Of Bihar , AIR
, as followed in
1974 SC 1822 State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Cri.) 192, and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the duty of an Investigating Officer is
not merely to bolster the prosecution case with evidence sufficient to
secure a conviction, but to bring out the real and unvarnished truth.
52. Dr. Prachi Pal was examined as P.W.5. She has stated that on
13.04.2014, at about 2: 00 p.m., the victim was brought before her at the
hospital by the Women Police Station, Muradnagar, for medical
examination. She conducted the following examination:
External Examination: The victim was found to be mentally sound,
conscious, and in a normal state. Her height was recorded as 148 cm and
her weight as 45 kg. She had black hair, and her pubic hair was black and
short. Her breasts were developed. She was wearing changed clothes at
the time of the medical examination. No external injuries were found on
any part of her body.
Internal Examination: No injury marks were found on the internal genital
organs. The hymen was found to be old and ruptured. Two slides, vaginal
and cervical, were prepared and sent for pathological examination.
53. The medical examination of the victim was conducted in the presence
of and with the consent of her mother. The victim’s thumb impression
was obtained on the medical examination report, which was available on
the record. The witness proved the said report by identifying it as being in
her handwriting and bearing her signature. The medical examination
report was accordingly marked as Exhibit Ka-8.
54. The supplementary medical report of the victim, containing the
findings of the pathological examination, was also available on the record.
No male spermatozoa were detected in the samples examined. The doctor
opined that no definite opinion could be expressed regarding forcible
sexual intercourse. She proved the supplementary medical report by
identifying her signatures thereon, and the same was marked as Exhibit

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
16
Ka-9. The pathological report was separately marked as Exhibit Ka-10.
55. The victim was referred to the Chief Medical Officer for
determination of her age, and the age certificate obtained in that regard
was available on the record.
56. Despite being afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witness,
the accused did not put any questions to her in cross-examination.
Consequently, her testimony remained unchallenged on the points stated
by her in her examination-in-chief. However, the evidentiary value of her
testimony is to be assessed in accordance with the settled principles of
law and in the context of the other evidence available on record.
57. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed
that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case.
The medical examination report, pathological report, supplementary
medical report, and age certificate of the victim issued by the Chief
Medical Officer were put to him for his explanation. However, he denied
the genuineness of the said documents by stating that they were false.
58. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has
been falsely implicated in the present case and that the prosecution has
failed to establish the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt. It is
contended that there is no independent witness to corroborate the
allegations made by the victim and her family members. The prosecution
case is based primarily upon the testimony of the victim and her relatives,
who are interested witnesses.
59. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the victim
was allegedly recovered after about 12–13 days, during which period she
was residing with the appellant at Faridabad. It is argued that the
prosecution has failed to produce any independent evidence to establish
the circumstances in which the victim was allegedly taken away or
confined by the appellant. The appellant is stated to have been falsely
implicated on account of the alleged previous incident, regarding which
no report had been lodged with the police.

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
17
60. It is further contended that the medical evidence does not support the
prosecution's allegation of forcible sexual intercourse. The doctor did not
find any external or internal injury on the person of the victim, and no
male spermatozoa were detected in the samples sent for pathological
examination. The medical expert was unable to give any definite opinion
regarding forcible sexual intercourse. Therefore, according to learned
counsel for the appellant, the medical evidence does not corroborate the
allegation of rape.
61. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the
prosecution has failed to establish the allegations against the appellant by
reliable and cogent evidence. It is argued that the statement of the victim
requires careful scrutiny in view of the circumstances of the case and the
absence of medical corroboration. The appellant has been falsely
implicated, and the findings recorded by the learned trial court are
contrary to the evidence available on record.
62. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order
passed by the learned trial court suffer from illegality and infirmity and
are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant
prays that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the
charges levelled against him.
63. Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the prosecution has
successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt on the basis of cogent, consistent and reliable evidence adduced
during the trial. It is contended that the testimony of the victim (P.W.3) is
clear, categorical and trustworthy, and there is no material contradiction
in her statement so as to discredit the prosecution case. The victim has
consistently stated that the appellant enticed her away on the pretext of
marriage, took her to Faridabad, confined her in a rented room and
repeatedly committed rape upon her.
64. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the testimony of the victim
is duly supported by the statements of P.W.1 Smt. Sumitra and P.W.2
Ballu alias Balbir, who have corroborated the circumstances surrounding
her disappearance and the appellant's conduct. The victim was recovered
by the police on 13.04.2014 at Duhai bus stand, and the investigating

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
18
officer has duly proved the investigation, the site plan, the medical
examination and the filing of the charge-sheet against the appellant. The
prosecution evidence, when considered as a whole, establishes the
appellant's involvement in the commission of the offence.
65. It is further contended that the age of the victim was established
through her High School Certificate, which records her date of birth as
03.03.1998. Accordingly, she was a minor at the time of the incident.
Learned A.G.A. submits that the appellant cannot derive any benefit from
the absence of external injuries or the non-detection of spermatozoa in the
pathological examination, as such circumstances, by themselves, do not
discredit the credible testimony of the victim or conclusively rule out the
commission of rape.
66. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that the victim's statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C.. is consistent with her testimony before the trial court
regarding the manner in which the appellant took her away and subjected
her to sexual intercourse. The defence has failed to elicit any material
during cross-examination that would render her testimony unreliable. The
findings recorded by the learned trial court are based on proper
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record
and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference
by this Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal lacks merit and is
liable to be dismissed, and the judgment and order passed by the learned
trial court deserve to be affirmed.
67. The radiological certificate regarding the age of the victim, issued by
the Chief Medical Officer, District Ghaziabad, on 16.04.2014, records her
age as 18 years. However, the said certificate was not exhibited during the
trial, and the appellant/accused also denied it in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.. in response to Question No. 10. On the other hand,
the High School certificate of the victim records her date of birth as
03.03.1998, which was verified by the victim herself and by the
Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The finding of
the learned trial court regarding the minority of the victim is, therefore,
supported by the documentary evidence available on record.
68. The testimony of the victim (P.W.-3) has been carefully scrutinised in

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
19
the light of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant
and learned A.G.A. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash
Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658, State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus
and Another, (2005) 3 SCC 594, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh,
(1996) 2 SCC 384, Vijay alias Chinee v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC
191, Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 9, and
Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC
192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the testimony of a
prosecutrix must be assessed with due care and sensitivity and that if her
evidence is found to be reliable and trustworthy, her sole testimony can
form the basis of conviction without independent corroboration.
69. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court finds that the victim has given a clear and consistent account of the
manner in which the appellant took her away from her house, took her to
Faridabad, and kept her in a separate room for approximately 12–13 days,
during which he repeatedly subjected her to sexual intercourse. Her
testimony is supported by the surrounding circumstances and the evidence
of the other witnesses regarding her disappearance and subsequent
recovery. The appellant was a married man having three children and was
distantly related to the victim as her maternal uncle. These circumstances
have also been taken into consideration while assessing the prosecution
case.
70. The absence of external injuries on the victim and the medical opinion
expressing no definite conclusion regarding forcible sexual intercourse do
not, by themselves, discredit her otherwise reliable testimony. In
State of
U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus and Another, (2005) 3 SCC 594 , and Vijay
, the Hon’ble Supreme
alias Chinee v. State of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 191
Court recognised that the absence of injuries is not, by itself, sufficient to
reject the prosecution case where the testimony of the prosecutrix inspires
confidence. Furthermore, since the victim was below 18 years of age at
the time of the occurrence, her consent does not constitute a defence to
the charge of rape under the law applicable to the incident.
71. The delay in lodging the first information report and the discrepancies
pointed out by the defence regarding the period of the victim’s absence

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
20
have also been considered. In
Ram Das v. State of Maharashtra, (2007)
2 SCC 170 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised the importance of
examining the circumstances surrounding a delay in lodging the FIR. The
effect of delay must be assessed in the context of the facts of each case,
rather than by applying an inflexible rule. In the present case, the
explanation offered by the prosecution, considered alongside the
testimony of the witnesses and the overall evidence, does not create a
sufficient ground to discard the prosecution case.
72. So far as the investigation is concerned, the principles laid down in
State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715, Jamuna
and
Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 1822, Babubhai v.
State of Gujarat, , (2010) 12 SCC 254, require the Court to examine the
prosecution evidence independently and to assess any alleged defect in
investigation in the context of the entire case. A defect or omission in
investigation does not automatically entitle the accused to acquittal where
the substantive evidence otherwise establishes the prosecution case. The
submissions advanced on behalf of the learned A.G.A., including the
reliance placed upon Javed Masood v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 3
, have been considered; however, the evidence in the present
SCC 538
case does not disclose any material infirmity warranting a different
conclusion.
73. Upon an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence,
this Court finds that the learned trial court has properly evaluated the
prosecution evidence and recorded its findings on the basis of the material
available on record. The testimony of the victim inspires confidence, and
the defence has failed to demonstrate any material contradiction,
illegality, perversity or misappreciation of evidence warranting
interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the
conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court do not call for
interference. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed
and is accordingly.
dismissed
74. As the appellant, Padam Singh @ Padmi is on bail, he is directed to
surrender before the learned trial court within fifteen days from today. His
bail bonds will be cancelled, and the sureties will be discharged as soon as

CRLA No. 4246 of 2017
21
he surrenders before the learned trial court.
75. Learned trial court shall complete the necessary formalities. The
appellant shall undergo the remaining sentence awarded by the learned
trial court, and the period of incarceration already undergone by him, if
any, shall be adjusted against the sentence in accordance with law.
76. In case the appellant fails to surrender within the stipulated period,
learned trial court shall be at liberty to take all necessary steps to secure
his presence and ensure compliance of this order.
77. A copy of this judgment shall be transmitted forthwith through e-mail
to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, for information and
necessary compliance. The office shall also transmit a copy of this
judgment, along with the trial court record, to the learned trial court
immediately for necessary compliance.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
October 26, 2026
M. Tarik
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad