Kamlesh Kashyap vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52-DB

Court No. - 45

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 310 of 2024

Appellant :- Kamlesh Kashyap Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jalaj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Jalaj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant (informant) and Shri Nitin Agarwal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. arising from the order of acquittal dated 20.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 894 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. 2490 of 2022), State Vs. Chand Babu), whereby the learned court below after having made detailed appreciation of evidence and material on record, acquitted the accused of offence alleged under Section 376(2)(N), 420, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/5 of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2024.

¶8

The main accusation against the accused person arose on the strength of F.I.R. lodged on 25.08.2022 reporting commission of offence of rape on the present appellant (informant) at an unspecified hotel, on 24.08.2022. Vague and generic allegations were made in the F.I.R. However, it may be noted that those allegations were disclosed to have arisen on 24.08.2022 involving the accused person Chand Babu only. It remained undisputed that

¶9

on the date of occurrence the appellant was more than 24 years of age. According to her, the accused person was in contact with her over telephone from about 5 months prior to the occurrence. Such statement was also reiterated during investigation. At the trial, vast improvement appears to have been offered by the victim inasmuch as at the trial she narrated another version. Thereby it was stated that the accused person had not only made telephone contact with the victim but that he had earlier committed rape on her in a moving car. Further allegation was made against the accused person of having taken the victim to an unknown dwelling house and of having committed rape on her there and obtaining obscene photographs which were used to blackmail the victim. In that background, she disclosed to have accompanied the accused person to a guest house namely Mannat guest house at Bareilly on 24.08.2022 at about 6:00 p.m. where rape was again committed on her by the accused person.

¶10

In support of the allegations, the victim got herself examined. She claims that her statement remained consistent from the lodging of the F.I.R. and at the trial. Merely because certain other allegations were disclosed at the trial, it may not have offered any inconsistency in the prosecution story as may have led the learned court below to disbelieve the statement of the victim herself.

¶11

In the backdrop of the nature of offence alleged being rape, it has been submitted that there could be no other evidence existing leading to inconsistency in the statement of the victim that has been disbelieved for no good reason either on fact or in law. Therefore the order of acquittal is erroneous and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶12

We have given anxious consideration to the submissions thus

¶13

advanced. The record of the case has been received. Though it is not doubted that the oral statement was furnished by the victim ostensibly in support of prosecution story, at the same time, it is also true that on the own case of the appellant she was more than 24 years of age on the date of occurrence; the parties were known for at least 5 months before the occurrence; the appellant accompanied the accused person to Mannat guest house on 24.08.2022; P.W.2 Somnath who is the Manager of Mannat guest house was examined. It was thus proved that not only the appellant accompanied the accused person to Mannat guest house on 24.08.2022 but that she disclosed her name to be Neha while she signed the register as Seema; it also remained undisputed at the trial that no protest or objection or resistance whatsoever was offered by the appellant nor any alarm was raised by her at the Mannat guest house, at or around the time of the alleged occurrence. It has also come on record that she left together with the accused person after a brief stay at the said accommodation.

¶14

No other witness of fact was examined and no other material either photographs or video recording or any other material was brought on record to establish that any force or coercion or threat was exercised by the accused person on the appellant to force her to offer her above noted conduct at the Mannat guest house, on 24.08.2022.

¶15

Thus, the learned court below has not erred in reaching a conclusion that the parties had formed consensual relationship. For reasons not known and not necessary to be established at the trial for that relationship to fall apart, it may never be relevant or decisive.

¶16

It also cannot be lost sight that the learned court below has

¶17

further taken note of the earlier complaint lodged by the present appellant against a third party making similar allegation. In that, on being confronted during her cross-examination, she admitted to the affidavit having filed by her in Criminal Complaint No. 354 of 2022 (Seema Vs. Aase and others), under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. before learned A.C.J. (S.D.), Rampur.

¶18

In view of the above, we find no good ground to offer any interference in the present appeal. The order passed by the learned court below is based on true and due appraisal and material evidence. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶19

Order Date :- 2.1.2025 SA

¶20

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) (S.D. Singh, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamlesh Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The District Advocates Association and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

The District Advocates Association and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

The District Advocates Association and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

The District Advocates Association and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

The District Advocates Association and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

The District Advocates Association and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others