Rishiram vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

Rishiram vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal admitted; lower court record summoned; complainant and victim to be impleaded as respondent nos. 2 and 3 with notice through learned A.G.A.; interim bail granted by the trial court under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C. extended till the next date of listing; appeal listed fresh on 19.05.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 354 and 323 IPC in the impugned judgment is sustainable, the trial court having found that it could not be proved that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of incident and that the POCSO Act was therefore not attracted. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

On the learned A.G.A.'s objection, the complainant and victim were treated as necessary parties: learned counsel for the appellant was directed to implead them as respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the memo of appeal during the course of the day, with notice to the newly added respondents to be served through learned A.G.A.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J. — Criminal Appeal No. 998 of 2026, Rishiram v. State of U.P., preferred under section 415(2) BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2026 of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hardoi in Special Session Trial no.363/2016 (PS Behta Gokul, District Hardoi), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 354 IPC (3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, default 6 months additional imprisonment) and Section 323 IPC (6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, default 7 days additional imprisonment), and acquitted under Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 506(2) IPC, the trial court having found that it could not be proved that the victim was below 18 years of age so the POCSO Act was not attracted. Counsel for the appellant contended the conviction was against the weight of evidence. On the learned A.G.A.'s objection, the Court held the complainant and victim to be necessary parties and directed their impleadment as respondent nos. 2 and 3; the appeal was admitted, the lower court record summoned, notice ordered through the learned A.G.A., the interim bail granted by the trial court under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C. was extended till the next date of listing, and the appeal was listed fresh for 19.05.2026. Interlocutory admission-stage order; no merits adjudication.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 998 of 2026

Rishiram

.....Appellant(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Counsel for Respondent(s) :	Arjun Singh Somvanshi, Avadhesh Kumar G.A.

Court No. - 27

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

The instant criminal appeal under section 415 (2) BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2026 passed by Learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act ) Hardoi in Special Session Trial no.363/2016, under Section 354, 323, 506 IPC and under Section 7/8 of protection of children from sexual offences act, police station Behta Gokul, District Hardoi, tried the appellant and convicted him under Section 354 IPC for a period of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and in case of default of fine, 6 months additional imprisonment and under section 323 IPC for 6 months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- as fine and in case of default of fine, 7 days additional imprisonment,

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by the impugned order learned court below has acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 506 (2) IPC and convicted him for the charge under Section 354 and 323 IPC . Learned trial court has already while determining the point of determination no.1 that this fact could not be proved that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of incident, therefore, the provision of POCSO Act is not attracted . The court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant against the weight of the evidence on record.

CRLA No. 998 of 2026

2

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been released on interim bail under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C. by learned trial court vide order dated 16.03.2026 to enable him to prefer the appeal before this Court.

Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the accused was tried under penal provision of POSCO Act also therefore, the complainant and victim are necessary parties in this Case and they should have been impleaded as respondents.

Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to implead the complainant and victim as respondent no.2 and 3 in the memo of appeal during the course of the day.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record.

Issue notice to newly added respondent nos. 2 and 3 which shall be served upon them through learned A.G.A.

List on 19.05.2026 as fresh.

Interim bail granted to the appellant by learned trial court is extended till the next date of listing.

April 10, 2026 dk/

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

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