Good morning, to the honourable bench.

The counsel has the humble pleasure of

Appearing before this hon'ble supreme

court, in case of “Raghav v. state of U.P.”

In the present case the counsel would be

representing the appellant.

I’m the speaker no. 1 and my co-counsel

will be speaker no. 2

If the bench is well versed with the facts

of the case then May I proceed further

with the issues raised?

FACTS:

The facts of the case were as that the

Victim and the accused both belong to the same

village ghaila of district Lucknow.

According to the prosecution story, the victim

had gone to the field adjacent to river gomti to
ease her at the night of incident, which is 14
august 2019 at 8 pm.

The victim alleged that, when she reached the

field, someone held her and dragged her inside
the “sarpat”. When the victim tried to raise the
alarm, the person threatened her with dire
consequences and when she started weeping
during the course of act the accused ran away
leaving his pants and towel behind.

After delay of 10 days, The victim disclosed this

incident to her mother on 24 august 2019 and
suspected Raghav for the act.
On the basis of these facts, her mother lodged
the FIR with the further delay of 10 days. After
lodging of FIR the investigation commenced And
On the same day the accused Raghav was
arrested by police. The statement of, victim,
accused,

PW no. 1 – complainent, the mother

PW No. 4- Mr. Jung Bahadur

PW. No. 5 – gauri, classmate of the victim

Were recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. . The accused

was also examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he
denied all these allegations of rape and repeated
what he said in his statement u/s161 of crpc.

After the completion of investigation, the

charge-sheet was filled on 30 september 2019
u/s 376 and 506 of IPC. Then the accused
approached the Allahabad high court for
quashing the impugned chargesheet. However
the court observed that, at this stage it can't be
said that no prima facie offence is made out
against the petitioner. Thus the impugned
chargesheet doesn't call for any interference.

The trial court on 2nd march 2020 convicted the

Raghav after appreciating evidences on record
and imposed punishment of 10 yrs. Of rigorous
imprisonment with fine ten thousand rupees u/s
376 and 2yrs. Of rigorous imprisonment with fine
of 2000 rs. u/s 506. Both the sentences were
directed to be run concurrently.

On 18 march Raghav filed an appeal but the

division bench of the allahabad high court
dismissed the appeal observing that there is no
perversity and illegality in the judgement of Ld.
Trial court.
so the appellant is making an appeal in the
hon’ble Supreme court u/a 136 of the indian
constitution for the third review.

With the kind permission of the honourable

bench, the counsel would like to proceed further
by raising the issues and providing the
arguments advanced along with it.

1. WHETHER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

FILED BY APPELLANT UNDER ARTICLE
136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS
MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
It is most humbly and respectfully
submitted that Special Leave Petition
filed by appellant under Article 136
of Constitution of India is
maintainable. as the judgment passed
by honb’le Ld. Trial court is tainted
with serious legal infirmities. The
judgment of Ld. Trial Court is not
satisfactiory in law and also violates
Principle of Natural justice.
There were many illegalities and
irregularities of procedure and
violation of the principles of natural
justice resulting in absence of a fair
trial and there was gross
miscarriage of justice.
 It is humbly submitted that
Session Court found the
appellant guilty on the basis of
only police report, FIR,
Statements made u/s 161
Cr.P.C., medical examination
report and forensic science lab
report Neither of these
evidences clearly indicates
that the rape has been
committed.
  The chain of circumstantial
evidence in this case is not
conclusive.
 The medical examination
report clearly indicates that
there was no injury present on
victim’s body.
 There is lack of evidences
which can prove the guilt of
appellant u/s 376 because to
prove the accused guilty under
this section, he must be
proved guilty beyond
reasonable doubts which is not
done in this case.
 The prosecutrix did not named
the accused person responsible
for her rape but only
suspected.
It is most humbly submitted
that judgment of Hon‘ble Ld. Trial
Court is unjust, illegal and improper
as the conviction was based upon the
conjectures (insuffecient evidences)
and surmises (supposethat
something is true without
evidences) rather than proper legal
evidences. The conviction was based
upon the inadmissible evidences. It is
well settled that a statement made u/s
161 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece
of evidence
In case of Rajendra Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and Anr., the court held that,
A statement under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of
evidence. We are of the opinion that
the statements of the witnesses under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. being wholly
inadmissible in evidence could not at
all be taken into consideration for the
conviction. Therefore, the Ld. Trial
Court committed a manifest error of
law in relying upon wholly
inadmissible evidence.
Appellant have locus standi:
In case of Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh ,
the Hon’ble supreme court held that,
“Appeals under Article 136 of the
Constitution are entertained by
special leave granted by this Court,
whether it is the State or a private
party that invokes the jurisdiction of
this Court” It is most humbly
submitted that Appellant have direct
connection with the matter at hand.
Thus it is humbly submitted that
Appellant have Locus Standi in the
present case.
It is most humbly and respectfully
submitted that this court has
jurisdiction to hear the present case. It
is submitted that power given by
Article 136 is however, in nature of
special and residuary power which is
exercisable in cases where the needs
of justice demand interference by
Supreme Court of land. The article
itself is worded in the widest terms
possible.
Thus it is most humbly submitted that
this case falls under jurisdiction of
this court under Article136 of
Constitution of India and this Hon’ble
Court also has jurisdiction to re-assess
and re-appreciate the facts and
evidences on record.

THUS IT IS MOST HUMBLY AND

RESPECTFULLY SUMITTED
THAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
FILED BY APPELLANT UNDER
ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE.

2) The accused is not liable u/s 376

of I.P.C.
The chain of circumstantial
evidences is not complete so as to
unerringly point to the guilt of
accused. The essential ingredients
of sec. 375 of I.P.C. are not fulfilled
to hold Mr. Raghav, guilty for
offences under these sections.
According to the statement of accused
u/s 161 & 313 of Cr.P.C. he has
denied the allegations of rape. He
stated that, “whatever happened on 14
august 2019, happened with her
consent. They both had pre-planned
to meet at 8 p.m. on that day. They
had voluntarily went inside the
‘sarpat’. He had not used any force to
drag her inside the ‘sarpat’. When he
took off his clothes, victim suddenly
started crying and shouting for help.
Due to her sudden behaviour he ran
away in naked condition only in his
underwear”.
The medical examination report does
not show any evidence sexual
intercourse between them. No injury
on her body, and on her pvt. parts was
found and there was no bleeding,
redness, tenderness and discharge was
present. Even the victim’s clothes
were not taken for the forensic
science lab examination.
The pathological test report was also
not presented to prove any allegations
of rape. According to the forensic
 science lab report, no ‘spermatoza’
dead or alive was reported on the pant
and towel of accused.
 MOTIVE:
It is to be noted that the victim u/s
164 of Cr.P.C. had changed her
statement about the allegation of rape
around 3 months back by the accused.
Therefore, it is possible that she is
falsely implicating the charges of rape
on the accused due to property
dispute.
In case of vishnu kumar tiwari v.
state of U.P. (decided on 28 january
2021), in pg. 34 of the judgement it
was found that medical evidence did
not show any sperm and signs of
foreible sexual intercourse. This was
based on the finding that there were
no internal injuries. There is no
medical evidence to show any
forceible sexual intercourse and
injurues. The medical report also does
not show any presence of bleeding,
redness, tenderness, congestion, on
the private parts of the victim. Here it
was established before the honourable
Allajbad High Court that the victim
has made false rape allegations on the
accused due to a land dispute between
both of the families. So it is evident
that false allegations can be made in
certain exceptional cases.

FALSE IMPLICATION:
, according to the prosecution’s story,
no injuries were found on the victim’s
body. The victim had been dragged
by the accused inside the “sarpat”.
The victim should have some sort of
injuries due to resistence on her part.
 Furthermore “sarpat” is a
sharp long grass so it wouldn’t
be possible that the victim
didn’t get any injury.
  Even after the incident of
rape, neither the victim nor
her mother stated anything
regarding any sort of injury
found on the victim’s body
 She didn’t noticed the torned
clothes of victim, when she
came back from the field.
It creates a reason of doubt on the
prosecution’s story.

 Victim was not able to identify the

accuesd:
According to the prosecution story,
on the night of incident when Raghav
shut her mouth and dragged her inside
the “sarpat”, he threatened the victim
and said that if she will raise an alarm
then he would kill her.
As per the facts of the case, they both
were distant relatives and well known
to each other, it creates the reason of
doubt that the victim even after
hearing the voice of Raghav, was not
able to identify him and hence stated
in her statement that she suspects that
he was Raghav.

 There is no evidentiary value of

FIR and statements made u/s 161
Cr.P.C. in this case.
The basic purpose of filing FIR is to
set the criminal law into motion and
not to state, all the minute details
therein. It is the first version of
incident as received by the police.
The value of F.I.R depends on the
circumstances of each case, nature of
the crime information and opportunity
of witnessing the offence.
 It is most humbly submitted that FIR
is not substantive evidence as a
complainant may lodge, as in this
case, a false FIR based upon false and
fabricated story was made out. Thus
FIR cannot be used as an evidence to
convict an accused.
In Madhusudan Singh v. State “FIR
by itself is not a substantive evidence.
It can be used to contradict or
corroborate the maker in the manner
provided under the evidence Act. So
conviction on the basis of FIR without
any substantive evidence, is illegal.
The FIR which is lodged by the
prosecutrix’s mother is only the mere
accusation based on no material
evidences, FIR is not a substantial
evidence, and it has not been
corroborated by other material
evidence.
It is well settled that a statement
made u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is not a
substantive piece of evidence
because the victims was
inconsistent u/s 161 and 164 of
Cr.P.C.

 Victim’s statements are not wholly

reliable:
According to statement made by the
prosecutrix u/s 161 of Cr.P.C., “I was
raped by Raghav 3 months back also.
I was very scared thus I could not tell
anyone then. But how could I keep
silent when the act was repeated”

And the statement made by the victim

u/s 164 od Cr.P.C. to the magistrate,
she repeated the whole incident but
not said about her allegation that
Raghav had raped ger at one more
instance.
 When magistrate pointed this out, she
said “she had given statement of rape
on earlier occasion by mistake and
Raghav had not rapped her 3 months
back but only teased her.”

The testamoney of the victim shows

that she doesn’t know about the
difference between teased and raped.
But she has stated that the act was
repeated. So it creates the reason of
doubt weather the rape was happened
or the accused or has only teased the
victim?
If victim can change her statement
and make allegations of rape then it
creates doubt on her other statements
too.
These above grounds explained are
not sufficient to decide the guilt of
accused?
The statement of the victim are not
wholly reliable because the victim has
changed her statement u/s 161 and 164
of CRPC. Raghav, was not able to
identify him and hence stated in her
statement that she suspects that he
was Raghav.


1. Weather the accused is liable for u/s

376 of the IPC:-
According to the statement of the
accused u/s 161 and 313 of Cr.P.C. the
accused has denied the allegations of
rape. He further also stated that he with
the accused had gone to the field but it
didn’t proves the happening of rape
The only medical evidence to prove the
guilt of the accused is the hymen which
 is old torn. It doesn’t proves that the
hymen was entacted before the date of
incident of rape.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the fact used,

issues raised, arguments advanced and the
authorities cited may this hon’ble court be
pleased to:

1. Acquit:
a) Mr. Raghav for not committing
the offence of rape u/s 376 of
I.P.C.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may

deem fit in the interest of
justice, equity, and good
conscience.

All of which is most humbly

and respectfully submitted

Counsel for the appellant.