The Allahabad High Court, while hearing a criminal revision petition filed by an accused in a case relating to rape and offences under the POCSO Act, held that there was no legal error or irregularity in the trial court’s order rejecting the discharge application.
The Court observed that at the stage of framing of charges, a detailed appreciation of evidence is not permissible, and if the material on record gives rise to a reasonable suspicion regarding the prosecution allegations, charges can be framed.
The Court noted that,
“There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order dated 20.9.2025 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, (Exclusive) Jaunpur. The present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed accordingly.”
These observations were made by a Single Bench of Justice Abdul Shahid while dismissing the petition filed by Akash Yadav. The accused is facing prosecution under Section 376 IPC, 1860 and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in a case registered at Police Station Mugrabadshahpur, Jaunpur.
In the matter, counsel for the Accused/Revisionist contended that there were contradictions regarding the age of the prosecutrix and that the trial court had ignored her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which allegedly revealed inconsistencies about her age.
It was contended that according to the medical report, the prosecutrix was about 18 years of age on the date of her medical examination, however, as per the school certificate, her date of birth was recorded as 20.11.2007, which indicated that she was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident, that is, 06.03.2024. This, according to the defence, created doubt about her minor status under the POCSO Act.
It was further submitted that the prosecutrix, in her own statement, admitted to having met the accused on three to four occasions prior to the alleged incident, indicating a mutual consent relationship between the parties, close to the age of majority, which, according to the defence, would not attract the provisions of the POCSO Act or Section 376 of the IPC.
However, rejecting these submissions, the Court relied on earlier Supreme Court judgments and held that in cases involving minors, consent or voluntariness of the victim is of no relevance, and the absence of physical injuries does not negate the commission of the offence, particularly at the stage of the framing of the charges.
The High Court also took serious exception to the trial court having mentioned the name of the victim in its order and emphasized the need for strict compliance with the directions issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on January 16, 2019.
The Court reiterated that,
“…………the identity of victims of rape should be protected by the media including the press electronic and social media shall not reveal their identity…..”
The Court further referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nipun Saxena and another vs. Union of India and others, wherein it was categorically held that,
“…………….the victim of such offences should not be identifiable so that they do not face any hostile discrimination or harassment in the future.”
Emphasizing the object of the POCSO Act, the Court underlined that,
“…………….the identity of the child is not disclosed unless the Special Court for reasons to be recorded in writing permits such disclosure. This disclosure can only be made if it is in the interest of the child and not otherwise.”
In conclusion, the High Court referred the judgment of Supreme Court as passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 7772 of 2021 dated 30.6.2021, and said that,
“However, we take excepting to the judgment of the Sessions Judge where the name of victim is mentioned. It is well established that in cases like the present one, the name of the victim is not to be mentioned in any proceeding. We are of the view that all the subordinate courts shall be careful in future while dealing with such cases.”
Case: Akash Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another
Date of Order: 20.01.2026
See Order: Akash Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another
