Allahabad High Court acquitted man in a Rape-POCSO case after finding serious doubt in the prosecution story. Can the court return 9 lost years of a man’s life?
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court, through Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, set aside the life sentence of an accused in a rape and POCSO case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal was filed against the judgment dated 31 January 2019 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Auraiya. The trial court had convicted the accused under Sections 376 and 323 IPC and relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, and had sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The case began from an incident dated 9 May 2017. According to the first complaint, the victim went to buy something from a shop. While returning, she reached near the accused’s house, where he allegedly pressed her throat, due to which she fell down and became unconscious.
Initially, the case was registered under Section 323 IPC, Section 354B IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act. Later, after the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, Section 376 IPC was added.
During trial, the victim gave a detailed statement alleging rape. However, her father, who was the informant, did not support the rape allegation in the same manner. He stated that he had told the police only what his daughter had told him.
The defence argued that the accused had been falsely implicated due to old enmity and village politics. It was also argued that in the first police version, there was no rape allegation, and in the initial statement under Section 161 CrPC, the victim had only said that the accused had done “gandi baat” with her.
The prosecution argued that the victim was a reliable child witness and that conviction can be based on the testimony of a competent child witness if the court finds it trustworthy.
The High Court examined the case carefully and said that though one reliable witness can be enough for conviction, the testimony of a child witness must be checked with great caution because a child may be influenced or tutored.
The Court found that the rape allegation appeared for the first time in the victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement and later in court testimony. Because of these improvements, the Court considered whether the victim could be treated as a “sterling witness.”
The Court noted that a “sterling witness” means a witness whose version is fully reliable, natural and inspires complete confidence. It also referred to the standard that such testimony must appear as the “unvarnished truth.”
In this case, the High Court held that the victim’s testimony could not safely be treated as fully reliable because there were improvements at different stages.
The medical evidence also did not clearly support the rape allegation. The medical officer had stated that it was not necessary that rape had been committed. The Court also considered the absence of injuries, intact hymen and absence of seminal fluid.
After looking at the first complaint, the father’s testimony, the later improvements and the weak medical evidence, the High Court held that it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction.
The Court said that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It also repeated that when two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted.
Accordingly, Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence dated 31 January 2019, and acquitted the accused of all charges under Sections 323 and 376 IPC and relevant provisions of the POCSO Act.
The Court directed that the accused be released immediately, unless required in any other criminal case. His bail bonds were cancelled and sureties were discharged.
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND SECTIONS INVOLVED
| Law / Section | Purpose | How It Applied In This Case |
| Section 376 IPC | Punishment for rape | Conviction set aside. |
| Section 323 IPC | Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt | First complaint alleged assault. |
| Section 354B IPC | Assault or force against woman with intent to disrobe | Added before rape charge. |
| Sections 7/8 POCSO Act | Sexual assault on a child and punishment for it | Initially invoked in FIR. |
| Sections 3/4 POCSO Act | Penetrative sexual assault on a child and punishment | Serious POCSO charge involved. |
| Section 161 CrPC | Police statement during investigation | Initial version lacked rape allegation. |
| Section 164 CrPC | Statement before Magistrate | Rape allegation came later. |
| Section 313 CrPC | Accused’s explanation after prosecution evidence | Accused denied allegations. |
| Section 134 Evidence Act | No fixed number of witnesses required | Quality of evidence mattered. |
| Section 118 Evidence Act | Competency of witnesses, including child witnesses | Child testimony examined carefully. |
| Panchhi v. State of U.P. | Child witness evidence must be tested carefully | Used for caution. |
| State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh | Delay in sexual offence reporting is not always fatal | Court distinguished the facts. |
| Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State | Explains “sterling witness” standard | Used to test reliability. |
| State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ Lalla | Prosecutrix testimony must inspire confidence | Supported careful scrutiny. |
| Urmila Devi v. State of H.P. | Improved versions may create doubt | Used on contradictions. |
CASE DETAILS
- Case Title: Kuntesh vs State of U.P.
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5563 of 2019
- Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:124831-DB
- Date Of Judgment: 3 June 2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Siddhartha Varma | Hon’ble Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay
- Counsels:
- For Appellant: Ajay Singh Sengar, Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi and Vijay Singh Sengar
- For Respondent: G.A.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- A man cannot be kept convicted for life when the first complaint itself does not mention rape.
- Improved statements at later stages cannot replace solid evidence in a serious criminal trial.
- Child witness testimony is important, but courts must check it carefully for tutoring, pressure or improvements.
- Medical evidence, first complaint and witness conduct must be read together before destroying a man’s liberty.
- Benefit of doubt is not a loophole. It is the basic protection against wrongful conviction.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.