Ramesh v. State

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2026CRLA/525/1988

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

on 04.08.2026 Judgement delivered on…

Case summary

From the record, as published by the registry

on 04.08.2026 Judgement delivered on 16.09.2026 A . F. R. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 525 of 1988 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the informant and learned A . G. A . for the State. 2. The

Disposed 38 years 6 months after registration.

¶1

Judgement reserved on 04.08.2026

¶2

Judgement delivered on 16.09.2026

¶3

A. F. R.

¶4

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 525 of 1988

¶6

Ramesh	Versus	.....Appellant(s)
State	..	...Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Harish Chandra, Pawan Pradeep Kumar	Kumar Shukla,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.G.A., Indra Narayan

¶7

Court No. - 78

¶8

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the informant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶10

The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09.03.1988, passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, by which the appellants, namely Ramesh and Kalu were convicted under Section 376 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.

Ramesh Vs State — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ramesh v. State

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2026CRLA/525/1988

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

on 04.08.2026 Judgement delivered on…

Case summary

From the record, as published by the registry

Disposed 38 years 6 months after registration.

¶1

Judgement reserved on 04.08.2026

¶2

Judgement delivered on 16.09.2026

¶3

A. F. R.

¶4

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 525 of 1988

¶6

Ramesh	Versus	.....Appellant(s)
State	..	...Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Harish Chandra, Pawan Pradeep Kumar	Kumar Shukla,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.G.A., Indra Narayan

¶7

Court No. - 78

¶8

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the informant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶10

The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09.03.1988, passed by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, by which the appellants, namely Ramesh and Kalu were convicted under Section 376 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.

¶65

Learned counsel for the appellants/accused further submitted that, when two ladies are accompanying each other, they normally continue talking and speak to each other, while moving in the field, as it was near the field, then if one escapes, the other will take the notice of, who disappeared immediately. Further, it cannot be a case that, one lady out of two, continues to walk for a long distance and could not see, as to what has happened to the other lady (victim), who was accompanying her continuously. Moreover, by the time both the appellants grabbed the victim PW2, she did not make any hue and cry till the offence was committed by Kalu, as the victim was having sufficient occasion and time immediately, when the appellants tried to drag her to the maize field and if that was so, then another witness PW4, i. e. Roshani Devi, who was accompanying the victim, did not make any hue and cry that, the appellants/accused have dragged the prosecutrix / victim to the maize field and they were likely to commit any wrong act, such as rape with the victim PW2. Moreover, PW4 did not follow both the appellants / accused, as the maize crop is not very thick and measuring in height, so that the hue and cry could not be heard or seen from nearby. It is interesting to note that, PW 3 Ram Kumar, when he reached near his field, then he heard the cry of the woman, whereas PW 4 was already there and she did not hear any hue and cry of the victim. It is also interesting to note that, if a person is committing rape, he cannot be seen committing the offence from outside the field, unless the person reaches near the spot of incident. Since PW3 and PW4 have allegedly seen the committing of the offence at the hands of Ramesh, it is nowhere have come on record that, both have seen together, while Ramesh was committing the offence or from how far and what distance, PW3 and PW4 Ram Kumar and Roshani Devi have seen the incident taking place inside the maize field. The story appears to be concocted, as there is no consistency of the witnesses particularly, PW3 and PW4, as to where both have seen the commission of offence together, or separately or at the same time inside the maize field or outside the field or from what distance, and have merely stated that, PW3 has seen the commission of offence and PW4 has also stated that, she has seen the offence being committed with the victim.

¶95

22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre 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 every one 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 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."

Ramesh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

Case summary

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

Case summary

Case details

Similar cases