Dismissed¶22

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Sharik and 7 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2025/162/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave to appeal u/s 378(3) CrPC / Government appeal by State of U.P. against trial-court acquittal in a POCSO-plus-IPC kidnapping, abduction, solicitation, hurt-and-gang-rape case (Special Trial No. 17 of 2021, case crime 236/2020, PS Kotwali Nagar, Sitapur; Ss. 363, 368, 372, 504, 376D, 109 IPC and 5G/6, 17 POCSO Act 2012). Delay in filing condoned, but leave refused: victim and father turned hostile in cross-examination, FIR delay unexplained, age/minority proof failed on name mismatch, no medical examination of victim; acquittal upheld and appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the appeal condoned (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025); leave to appeal refused and Government Appeal dismissed. ¶22

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing the appeal condoned (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025); leave to appeal refused and Government Appeal dismissed.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025). +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Cause shown for the delay is sufficient; the application for condonation of delay (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025) is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

There is major contradiction between the examination-in-chief statements of P.W.1 (father Shakeel Ahmad) and P.W.2 (victim) as to how the report came to be lodged.

¶17

Key takeaways

Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 changed their version in cross-examination and do not support the prosecution case; the victim stated she left voluntarily, denied being lured or assaulted, said the FIR/Magistrate's rape statement was made out of fear and public shame, and declared the accused innocent.ratio¶17
Delay in lodging the F.I.R. (victim missing 02.4.2020; F.I.R. lodged 29.4.2020) was not satisfactorily explained by P.W.1.ratio¶18
Victim's status as minor not proved: P.W.4 (Principal) stated in cross-examination that no girl by the victim's name studied in her school and the certificate name did not tally with the name in the F.I.R. and the Section 161/164 Cr.P.C. statements, so her testimony does not support the prosecution case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH), COURT NO. 10 — RAJNISH KUMAR & ZAFEER AHMAD, JJ. | 09.12.2025 | APPLICATION U/S 378 DEFECTIVE No. 162 of 2025 (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025 for condonation of delay). Applicant: State of U.P. thru Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. (counsel: G.A.); Opposite Parties: Sharik and 7 others (no counsel shown). Delay condoned. Leave to appeal under S. 378(3) CrPC sought against the judgement/order dated 18.4.2025 of the Addl. and District Sessions Judge, Court No. 14/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitapur acquitting the accused in Special Trial No. 17 of 2021 (case crime no. 236 of 2020, PS Kotwali Nagar, Sitapur; charged under Ss. 363, 368, 372, 504, 376D [charge-sheet also 366] and read-with 109 IPC; S. 5G/6 read-with S. 17, POCSO Act, 2012). Court declined leave: (i) major contradiction between P.W.1 (father Shakeel Ahmad) and P.W.2 (victim), who recanted in cross-examination saying the FIR/Magistrate's rape statement was made out of fear and public shame and declaring the accused innocent; (ii) FIR lodged 29.4.2020 for disappearance of 02.4.2020, delay not satisfactorily explained; (iii) victim's minority unproved — P.W.4 (Principal Pinki Mishra): no such student, certificate name mismatch with FIR and S.161/S.164 Cr.P.C. statements; (iv) no medical examination of the victim — significant investigative lapse creating reasonable doubt. Leave to Appeal and consequential Government Appeal dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 378 DEFECTIVE No. - 162 of 2025

¶3

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sharik And 7 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: G.A.
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:

¶7

Court No. - 10

¶8

HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

¶9

C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025 (Application for Condonation of Delay)

¶10

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal duly supported with an affidavit.

¶11

Reasons in detail have been spelt out for condonation of delay.

¶12

Cause shown is sufficient.

¶13

Application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶14

Order on Leave to Appeal

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State.

¶16

The Leave to Appeal filed under Section 378(3) Criminal Procedure Code(in short Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgement and order dated 18.4.2025 passed by the learned Additional and District Sessions Judge, court no. 14/Special Judge(POCSO Act), Sitapur in Special Trial No. 17 of 2021 arising out of case crime no. 236 of 2020, under Sections 363, 368, 372, 504, 376D I.P.C. and Section 5G/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, police station Kotwali Nagar, district Sitapur whereby the accusedrespondents have been acquitted by the trial court.

¶17

Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Shakeel Ahmad gave

¶18

A378D No. 162 of 2025

¶19

¶20

tehrir(Ext. Ka-1) at the police station stating therein that his daughter aged about 16 years old, on 02.04.2020 at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening left home for Manni Chauraha to buy goods and when she did not return even after an hour, he went out in search of her. He searched her at all possible locations and relatives’ homes but could not find her. Due to public shame, he has been searching his daughter ever since. His daughter was wearing coffee colour salwar suit and black shoes.

¶21

On the basis of tehrir of the complainant, police registered the case as case crime no. 236 of 2020, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code(in short I.P.C.) against unknown persons and after completing all other formalities related to the case, the details of the case were entered in the GD. The Investigating Officer started investigation and found sufficient evidence against the accused namely Sharik, Naseem, Seema and Tabassum and submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 363, 366, 372, 504 and 376D of the I.P.C. and Section 5G/6 of the POCSO Act. After taking cognizance on the charge-sheet, on 8.9.2021, charges were framed against accused Sarik and Naseem under Sections 363, 368, 372, 504 and 376D I.P.C. and Sections 5G/6 of the POCSO Act and against accused Seema and Tabassum under Sections 363, 368, 372, 504, 376D read-with Section 109 I.P.C. and Section 5G/6 read-with Section 17 of the POCSO Act. The accused denied the charges and pleaded for trial.

¶22

To prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses :-

¶23

P.W. 1 Shakeel Ahmad, P.W. 2 Victim, P.W. 3 Head Moharrir Brijlal Saroj and P.W. 4 Smt. Pinki Mishra, Principal.

¶24

P.W. 1 Shakeel Ahmad, who is father of the victim, has deposed that his daughter aged about 16 years old left home for Manni Chauraha to buy goods and when she did not return even after long time, he went out in search of her. He searched for her at all possible locations and relatives’ homes but could not find her. Due to public shame, he had been searching his daughter for 26-27 days and when he could not find her, he went to the Kotwali Sitapur to lodge the report. He further deposed that the police recovered her daughter after eight months.

¶25

A378D No. 162 of 2025

¶26

¶27

In cross-examination, PW 1 has deposed that when his daughter, the victim, returned to him approximately eight months later, out of fear, she gave a false statement to the police against accused Sharik, Naseem, Seema, and Tabassum, and also gave a false statement of rape to the Magistrate against the accused Sarik, Naseem, Seema, and Tabassum out of fear and public shame.

¶28

P.W. 2, who is victim, in her examination-in-chief deposed that the incident occurred on 02.04.2020. She was sixteen years old at the time. The accused Tabassum brought her to the G.I.C. intersection and left her with the accused Sarik. She further deposed that the accused Tabassum lives in her neighborhood. The accused Sharik used to visit her house, through which she knew one Arif. She deposed that the accused Sariq had deceived her with promise of marriage. Therefore, after the accused Tabassum left her with Sarik at the G.I.C. intersection on 02.04.2020, she went with the accused Sharik to Lakhimpur. The accused Sharik kept her in Lakhimpur for eight months, where Sharik and his friend Naseem did misdeed with her many times. The accused Sharik abused her, when she talked about marriage. She further deposed that the woman in whose house she was kept in Lakhimpur was one Seema and the accused Sharik and Naseem had left her at the accused Seema's house. The accused Seema also used to make her do wrong things. Somehow she got a chance and ran away from there and after reaching home she had narrated everything to her father. Then her father took her to the police station and lodged a report. She further deposed that the police recorded her statement, x-ray was done and her statement was recorded in the court of Magistrate.

¶29

In cross-examination, she deposed that she voluntarily left her relative's home in Lakhimpur on 02.04.2020 without informing anyone as she was annoyed with her family members. Neither the accused Sariq, Naseem, Seema, nor Tabassum lured her anywhere nor did anyone forcibly commit any misdeed on her. The victim also alleged that, out of fear and under the influence of others, she had asked her father to file case against the accused Sharik, Naseem, Seema, and Tabassum. The accused in court, Sharik, Naseem, Seema, and Tabassum, are innocent. They never lured her anywhere, nor did Sharik and Naseem ever did anything

¶30

A378D No. 162 of 2025

¶31

¶32

inappropriate to her.

¶33

P.W. 3 is the Head Moharari, who has certified the chik F.I.R. as Ext.-Ka-3 and G.D. as Ext. Ka-4.

¶34

P.W. 4 is the Principal, who certified the S.R. Register as Ext.-Ka 5 and age certificate as Ext. Ka-6.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the trial court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused-respondents.

¶36

From perusal of the statements of the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, this Court finds that there is major contradiction in the statement of the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 as stated in the examination-in-chief. P.W. 1 has stated that when he could not find her daughter after searching about 26-27 days, he went to the police station to lodge the report, whereas the P.W. 2 in her statement has stated that when she somehow got a chance to run away from the clutches of the accused she went to her father and told everything to her father who took her to the police station to lodge the report. Moreover, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in cross-examination changed their version and do not support the prosecution case. P.W. 1 has stated that when his daughter, the victim, returned to him approximately eight months later, out of fear, she gave a false statement to the police against Sharik, Naseem, Seema, and Tabassum, and also gave a false statement of rape to the Magistrate against the accused the accused Sharik, Naseem, Seema, and Tabassum out of fear and public shame, whereas the P.W. 2, the victim has stated that she voluntarily left her relative's home in Lakhimpur on 02.04.2020 without informing anyone as she was annoyed with her family members. Neither the accused Sharik, Naseem, Seema, nor Tabassum lured her anywhere nor did anyone forcibly commit any misdeed on her. The victim also deposed that, out of fear and under the influence of others, she had asked her father to file police case against the accused Sharik, Naseem, Seema, and Tabassum and the accused present in the court, are innocent. They never lured her anywhere, nor did Sharik and Naseem ever did anything inappropriate to her.

¶37

The victim is stated to be missing on 02.4.2020, whereas the F.I.R.

¶38

A378D No. 162 of 2025

¶39

¶40

was lodged on 29.4.2020. The explanation for delay in lodging the F.I.R. was not satisfactorily explained by the P.W. 1.

¶41

The victim was stated to be minor at the time of incident but from perusal of the statement of the P.W. 4 the same does not stand proved, as she in her cross-examination has stated that no girl with the name of victim was studying in her school and the name mentioned in the certificates does not tally with the name of the victim mentioned in the F.I.R., and also in the statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., as such, the testimony made by the P.W. 4 does not support the prosecution case.

¶42

In the case of alleged sexual assault and rape, the medical examination of the victim should be conducted at the earliest as the same provides assistance to the court in determining the truthfulness of the charges. However in the present case, this Court also finds that the medical examination of the victim was not conducted. This is significant lapse on the part of the investigation and thus creates a reasonable doubt on the story of the prosecution.

¶43

In the present case, the testimony of the victim suffers from material contradiction and the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and there is no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial court.

¶44

The Leave to Appeal is accordingly dismissed and consequently the Government Appeal is also dismissed.

¶45

(Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶46

December 9, 2025 kanhaiya

¶47

Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Sharik and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Sharik and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anjana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Xyz (Minor ) in Fir Case Crime NO.-154/ 2024 Thru. Her Mother/Complainant and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Others

Jameel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Lakshmi Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Rahul Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Sharik and 7 Others