Ajeet Singh Constable v. State of UP & Anr.

The case of Ajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. presents a significant legal challenge concerning the conviction of Ajeet Singh, a constable, for alleged rape. The matter has raised critical issues regarding the reliability of victim testimony, the adequacy of medical and forensic evidence, and the fairness of trial proceedings. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case, examining the legal principles invoked, the facts of the case, and the improvements made by the Allahabad High Court.

Facts of the Case

Ajeet Singh, a constable with the Uttar Pradesh Police, was accused of raping a woman in a paddy field. The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the victim’s testimony, medical reports, and witness statements.

1. Victim’s Testimony:

  • Section 161 CrPC Statement: Initially, the victim did not mention rape, attributing the incident to darkness and fear.
  • Section 164 CrPC Statement: In a subsequent statement, the victim alleged that Ajeet Singh raped her in a paddy field, using a torchlight to gag her.

2. Medical and Forensic Evidence:

  • The medical examination of the victim indicated that her hymen was intact and there were no signs of external injury.
  • No conclusive medical opinion was provided regarding the allegations of rape.
  • Critical evidence, such as the torchlight allegedly used in the assault and the accused’s mud-stained clothes, was not produced in court.

3. Witness Testimonies:

  • P.W.-2 (Kallu Kori), the informant, did not witness the alleged rape and failed to provide the victim’s clothes to the police.
  • P.W.-3 (Women Constable Vandana Dwivedi) confirmed the victim’s initial Section 161 CrPC statement, which did not mention rape.
  • Medical professionals testified that the victim’s injuries did not conclusively indicate rape.

4. Defense’s Case:

Ajeet Singh claimed innocence and argued that he was falsely implicated due to personal animosity with P.W.-2 (Kallu Kori).

Legal Issues and Sections Invoked

The case raised several legal issues, with specific sections of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) being invoked during the trial and appeal:

1. Reliability of Victim’s Testimony:

  • Section 161 CrPC: Initial statement not mentioning rape.
  • Section 164 CrPC: Subsequent statement alleging rape.
  • Issues regarding the consistency and reliability of the victim’s statements were pivotal in the case.

2. Medical and Forensic Evidence:

  • Sections 53 and 54 of the Indian Evidence Act: Admissibility and importance of medical evidence.
  • Section 164 CrPC and Section 293 IPC: Failure to produce critical forensic evidence, such as the torchlight and mud-stained clothes.

3. Witness Testimonies:

  • Sections 118 and 137 of the Indian Evidence Act: Examination of witnesses.
  • Witness testimonies were crucial in establishing the sequence of events and the credibility of the allegations.

4. Defense’s Argument:

  • Sections 155 and 161 of the Indian Evidence Act: Cross-examination and the defense’s case.
  • The defense claimed false implication and personal animosity as reasons for the accusation against Ajeet Singh.

Allahabad High Court’s Intervention and Improvements

The Allahabad High Court addressed several deficiencies in the trial court’s decision and made significant improvements in the legal proceedings:

1. Evaluation of Victim’s Testimony:

  • The High Court critically analyzed the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements under Section 161 and Section 164 of the CrPC.
  • It emphasized the importance of coherent and consistent testimony in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Medical and Forensic Examination:

  • The High Court highlighted the lack of conclusive medical and forensic evidence supporting the allegations of rape.
  • It stressed the need for a thorough and detailed medical examination to substantiate claims of sexual assault.

3. Evaluation of Witness Testimonies:

  • The High Court examined witness testimonies under Sections 118 and 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, assessing their credibility and reliability.
  • It noted discrepancies in the testimony of key witnesses, such as P.W.-2 and P.W.-3.

4. Defense’s Case and False Implication:

The High Court considered the defense’s argument of false implication due to personal animosity and evaluated its plausibility under Sections 155 and 161 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Legal Implications and Future Considerations

The case of Ajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. raises several important legal implications and considerations:

1. Consistency in Victim Statements:

The case underscores the importance of consistent and coherent victim statements in criminal cases, particularly those involving sexual assault.

2. Medical and Forensic Evidence:

It highlights the necessity of conclusive medical and forensic evidence to support allegations in cases of sexual assault.

3. Witness Testimonies and Evidence:

The adequacy of witness testimonies and the presentation of critical evidence, such as forensic reports, are crucial in establishing guilt or innocence.

4. Fair Trial Standards:

The case emphasizes the importance of fair trial standards and the role of appellate courts in correcting errors made during trial proceedings.


In conclusion, the case of Ajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. presents a complex legal scenario involving allegations of rape against a constable. The Allahabad High Court’s intervention highlighted significant deficiencies in the trial court’s decision, particularly regarding the reliability of the victim’s testimony, the adequacy of medical and forensic evidence, and the defense’s case of false implication. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal standards and ensuring a fair trial for both the accused and the victim in criminal proceedings.

By addressing these issues, the High Court has made important improvements in the case, setting a precedent for future trials involving similar allegations. The outcome of this appeal will have far-reaching implications for the judicial system’s handling of cases of sexual assault, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation and evidence-based prosecution.

In light of the foregoing analysis, the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Ajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. marks a significant development in Indian criminal jurisprudence, reaffirming the importance of due process and the rule of law in delivering justice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.