The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has directed a detailed investigation into allegations of a conspiracy to frame an accused in a rape case. The court’s judgment in Uma Shankar Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Others (Application U/S 482 No. 15281 of 2024) has exposed critical lapses in the verification of complainant identities and evidence in criminal proceedings. The judgment, delivered by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, highlighted the misuse of the judicial system through fabricated documents and false identities.
Case Background
The case arose from a criminal complaint against Uma Shankar Yadav and others, alleging offenses under Sections 376-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 5g/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012. The complaint was filed by a purported minor, “Simran,” who alleged gang rape. Based on her complaint, the Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO), Jalaun, issued a summoning order against the accused on March 7, 2024.
However, the accused challenged the proceedings, claiming that the complainant did not exist and that the documents supporting her allegations were forged. The applicant’s counsel argued that the proceedings were based on fabricated evidence intended to falsely implicate the accused.
Legal Issues Involved
The court delved into several key legal issues that arose from the case:
1. Existence of the Complainant:
A pivotal issue was whether the complainant, “Simran,” actually existed. Notices sent to her address were returned as undeliverable, raising doubts about her identity.
2. Authenticity of Supporting Documents:
The complainant had submitted a high school mark sheet and an Aadhaar card to establish her identity and age. Investigations revealed that both documents were forged.
3. Duty of Verification in Judicial Processes:
The case raised concerns about the responsibility of judicial officers and legal counsels in verifying the authenticity of complainants and their evidence, especially in cases involving serious allegations like rape.
4. Misuse of Legal Provisions:
The alleged fabrication highlighted how judicial processes could be manipulated to harass or falsely implicate individuals. The court emphasized the need for safeguards to prevent such abuse.
5. Accountability of Legal Practitioners:
The court examined the role of the counsel who filed the complaint and the Vakalatnama, raising questions about their duty to ensure the genuineness of the parties they represent.
Court’s Observations and Findings
After reviewing the evidence, including the forged documents and the failure to locate the complainant, the court made several important observations:
1. Fabrication of Evidence:
The High Court found that the complainant’s high school mark sheet, verified by the principal of Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College, was forged. The roll number on the mark sheet belonged to another student. Similarly, the Aadhaar card submitted was invalid.
2. Non-Traceability of the Complainant and Witnesses:
The complainant and her witnesses, Kapil Singh Chauhan and Vijay Kumar, were untraceable. Their addresses were found to be incorrect.
3. Serious Conspiracy:
The court described the events as a “serious conspiracy to falsely implicate the accused and misuse the forum of the court.” It called for accountability among all involved, including legal practitioners who facilitated the filing of the complaint.
Court Directions
Given the gravity of the findings, the court issued several directions:
1. Investigation by the Police:
The Superintendent of Police (SP), Jalaun, was directed to register an FIR against those involved in the forgery and conspiracy. The SP was tasked with verifying the complainant’s signatures on the Vakalatnama and other court documents.
2. Judicial Inquiry:
The District Judge, Jalaun, was instructed to investigate the possible involvement of judicial officers or court staff in enabling the fraudulent proceedings.
3. Stay on Proceedings:
All proceedings in the case were stayed until December 20, 2024.
4. Reports to be Submitted:
The SP and District Judge were required to submit their investigation reports to the High Court by the next hearing.
