Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Crlas / 2017U / 2018Sharad Chandra @ ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 May, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 123/2018
Asha Ram @ Ashumal, S/o Thewardas @ Thaumal,
R/o Sant Asha Ram Bapu Ashram Motera Sabarmati,
Dist Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
----Appellant
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 622/2018
Miss Sanchita @ Shilpi D/o Mahendra Kumar Gupta,
R/o 35-Molshri Vihar, Vip Road,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 665/2018
Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Appeal No. 123/2018
Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Rajesh Inamdar
Mr. Nishant Bora
Mr. Yashpal Rajpurohit
Ms. Shivangi Pathak
Mr. Bharat Sain
Mr. Rewant Solanki,
Mr. Arpit Linda,
Mr. JR Lohia
Mr. Shashwat Anand
for appellant Asha Ram
Appeal No. 665/2018
Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr Praveen Vyas
for appellant Sharad Chandra
Appeal No. 622/2018
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (2 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
[CRLAD-
Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Deepak Menaria
Mr. Yashpal Rajpurohit
for appellant Shilpi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted by
Mr. K.S. Kumpawat
Mr. P.C. Solanki with Ms. Muskan Moondra
Mr. Shubham Dave
Mr. Vipul Soni
Ms. Lavisha Soni
Mr. Kautubh Dave
for complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT Judgment Reserved on : 20.04.2026 Pronounced on : 27.05.2026 Reportable Per Arun Monga, J D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 123/2018 PRELUDE:
1. Before this Court, vide the instant appeal, stands a convict, in the twilight of his life, at 86 years of age, reverentially addressed as 'Bapu' by his devoted followers, many of whom regard him as a self-proclaimed godman and spiritual guide. Yet, behind that aura of cult faith lie the impugned findings of the learned Trial Court, which led to his conviction for the rape of a minor girl (the victim) and sentenced for remainder of his life. He challenges the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, asserting, inter alia, that he was framed by extortionists. He asserts that the hand of fate which brought him before justice was not divine reckoning, but a conspiracy of greed. The hands of justice have been guided not by truth, but by blackmailers. He is not a predator, but a pawn.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (3 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] [CRLAD-
1.1. While the appellant seeks freedom from sentence and restoration of his honour, on the other hand, the victim, a child then, also stands before this Court and opposes the appeal stating that she was robbed of her honour for the rest of her life. Like her parents, she had placed complete trust and devotion in the appellant as his disciple, thus alleging a graver charge against the appellant that he robbed her innocence and ravaged her honour irreparably. Born on 4th of July, America's Independence Day1, the child who came into this world on a day symbolic of freedom, dignity, and liberty, states that she was stripped of all three on the very night of 15th August, 2013, when India rejoiced in its own freedom. The victim's case is that for the Appellant imprisonment is only physical, but for her, the sentence imposed upon her soul is lifelong. No Court can grant her release, is what she says.
INTRODUCTORY:
2. Two more appeals, viz. 622/2018 and 665/2018, of the co-convicts are also clubbed with the above appeal filed by the prime accused/convict. All three appeals are directed against the same impugned judgment/order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act Cases, Jodhpur and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The breakup of the three appeals vis-a-vis conviction under various penal provisions and corresponding sentences awarded to the three appellants vide the impugned judgment/order, is as under:
A. Appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal:
(i) OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 370(4) INDIAN PENAL CODE - For this offence, he is punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years along with a fine of Rupees One lac. In the event of non-payment 1 Her date birth is stated to be 04.07.1997, though same disputed by appellant, but all of that is discussed in later part of judgment (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (4 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] [CRLAD-
of the fine, the accused shall undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(ii) OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 342 INDIAN PENAL CODE - For this offence, he is punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year along with a fine of Rs. 1000. In the event of non-payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.
(iii) OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 506 INDIAN PENAL CODE - For this offence, he is punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year along with a fine of Rs. 1000. In the event of non-payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.
(iv) OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 376(2)(f) INDIAN PENAL CODE - For this offence, he is punished with life imprisonment which shall be for the remainder of his natural life along with a fine of Rupees One Lac. In the event of non-payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(v) OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 376-D INDIAN PENAL CODE - For this offence, he is punished with life imprisonment which shall be for the remainder of his natural life along with a fine of Rupees One Lac. In the event of non-payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(vi) OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 23 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE & PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2000 - For this offence, he is punished with a simple imprisonment for a term of six months.
(vii). Asha Ram was also convicted for offence under Section 120B, 354A and 509 of IPC, Section 7/8 and 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act) but no sentence for those offences was awarded by the learned Trial Court as (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (5 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] [CRLAD-
per Section 42 of POCSO Act (alternate punishment provision) and for offence under Section 120B read with other Sections. B. Appellants Shilpi @ Sanchita and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra:
(i) OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 370(4) INDIAN PENAL CODE - For this offence, he is punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years along with a fine of Rupees One Lac. In the event of non-payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(ii) OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 376-D INDIAN PENAL CODE - For this offence, each accused is punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term of 20 years along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In the event of non-
payment of the fine, each accused shall undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment for two years.
(iii) Both the appellants were also convicted for offences under Section 5(g)/6 and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act but no sentence for those offences was awarded by the learned Trial Court as per Section 42 of POCSO Act.
FACTS
3. Briefly stated, facts are as under:
3.1. The prosecution case arises out of a Tehrir (written complaint) submitted by the complainant, "Su," at 2:45 a.m. on 20.08.2013 at Police Station Kamla Market, Central District, Delhi. On the basis of this complaint, FIR No. 0/2013 was registered for offences under Sections 342, 376, 354-A, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code;
Sections 23/26- of the Juvenile Justice Act; and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). 3.2. According to the Tehrir, the complainant was a resident student of Class XII at Sant Shri Asha Ram Gurukul, Parasia Road, Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh. She resided with her family--her father, Shri Karamveer (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (6 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] [CRLAD-
Singh; her mother, Smt. Sunita Singh; her elder brother, Shri Somveer Singh; and her younger brother, Shri Yashveer Singh. On 06.08.2013, she suddenly began experiencing giddiness, whereupon the Hostel Warden, Shilpi, informed her that she was under the influence of ghosts or evil spirits and stated that the matter would be discussed with Asha Ram.
3.3. On 07.08.2013, Shilpi telephoned the complainant's residence and informed her family that she was unwell and should be taken to a major city for treatment. Between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. on 08.08.2013, her parents reached the Gurukul and spoke with her over the telephone. On the morning of 09.08.2013, they came to the Girls' Hostel to take her home and met Shilpi in person. Shilpi reiterated that the complainant was under the influence of evil spirits, stated that Asha Ram had been apprised of the matter and had called for her, and advised the parents to take her immediately to the place where Asha Ram was present. 3.4. On 09.08.2013, the complainant returned to her house at Shahjahanpur. Her father thereafter inquired about Asha Ram's whereabouts and learnt that he was scheduled to be in Delhi on 12.08.2013. The family reached Delhi on 13.08.2013, only to be informed that Asha Ram had proceeded to Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Shiva, who was then serving Asha Ram, instructed them to come to Jodhpur immediately. 3.5. Upon reaching near Manai village, adjacent to Jodhpur, where Asha Ram was staying, they found the gate of the Ashram closed and disciples (sadhaks) standing outside. The complainant's father contacted Shiva by telephone, following which the gate was opened and they were allowed entry. Inside, Asha Ram was seated on a chair delivering spiritual discourses. The complainant and her parents also sat there. After some time, Asha Ram inquired from where they had come. The complainant stated that she was studying in a Gurukul. Asha Ram then declared that (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (7 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] [CRLAD-
he would exorcise her of evil spirits and spoke further about spirituality and matters concerning her future.
3.6. Subsequently, Asha Ram sent one of his sevaks to summon the complainant and her parents to meet him. He showed them his cottage, gave them prasad, and arranged accommodation for their stay. They stayed in the room so provided. On 15.08.2013, even food was sent to them. Later, Asha Ram conducted a satsang (spiritual discourse). 3.7. On the night of 15.08.2013, Asha Ram summoned the complainant and her parents to his cottage. He first spoke with her mother and father and then directed them to sit near the gate, engage in japa (silent chanting of God's name) and meditation, and leave after some time. He asked the complainant to sit behind his kutiya on a platform (chabutara) and offered her milk. After she consumed it, he asked her parents to leave. They initially did not comply; subsequently, the father went away, while the mother continued to sit nearby.
3.8. Asha Ram then entered his room through the front door. After some time, he switched off the lights and called the complainant inside through the back door. Once inside, he asked her to sit near him and engaged her in conversation. He then sent her to check what her parents were doing. Upon her return, she informed him that her mother was still seated outside and her father had left. At that point, he locked the room and began molesting her.
3.9. When she started crying, he threatened to have her parents killed. By intimidating and frightening her, he silenced her, kissed her, touched her inappropriately, and ran his hands over her entire body. He forcibly kissed her repeatedly and compelled her to perform a sexual act. He attempted to remove her clothes forcibly. When she cried and screamed, he covered her mouth. The molestation allegedly continued for approximately one to one and a half hours. Two or three of Asha Ram's (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (8 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] [CRLAD-
sevaks were present outside the room during this time. Before she left, he threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone.
3.10. Thereafter, she returned with her mother to the room allotted to them. On 16.08.2013, Asha Ram left for Delhi, and the complainant and her family returned home. Before departing, Asha Ram instructed her father to send her to Ahmedabad for an anushthan (religious observance) for seven to eight days, after which she would be sent back to Chhindwara. However, following the incident, she did not go to Ahmedabad. Upon reaching home, she narrated the entire episode to her parents and sought legal action against Asha Ram, the warden Shilpi, and Shiva.
3.11. According to the prosecution, upon receipt of the Tehrir report dated 20.08.2013 at Police Station Kamla Market, Delhi, ASI Pushpalata immediately arranged for the complainant's medical examination at Lok Nayak Hospital. Thereafter, the Tehrir was placed before the Duty Officer at the police station, on the basis of which FIR No. 0/2013 dated 20.08.2013 was formally registered. The complainant was subsequently provided counselling through an NGO activist, and her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was duly recorded on 20.08.2013 before the competent Magistrate.
3.12. As the alleged incident had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Jodhpur, Rajasthan, the complainant, accompanied by her parents and a police team, was sent to Jodhpur for further proceedings. On 21.08.2013 at 6:15 p.m., FIR No. 122 was registered at Police Station Women (West), Jodhpur, under Sections 342, 376, 354-A, 506, and 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act; and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (9 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] [CRLAD-
investigation of the case was entrusted to the Assistant Police Commissioner (West), Jodhpur.
3.13. After investigation, charge-sheet dated 06.11.2013 was filed against accused Asha Ram, under Sections 370(4), 342, 354-A, 376(2)(f), 376-D, 506, 509 read with Section 34, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act; and Sections 5(f)/6, 5(g)/6, and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3.14. As against accused Ms. Sanchita alias Shilpi and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra, the charge-sheet filed was for offences punishable under Sections 342, 354-A, 370(4), 376(2)(f), 376-D, 506, 509 read with Section 34, 109, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act; and Sections 5(f)/6, 5(g)/6, and 7/8 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3.15. Similarly, the charge-sheet filed against accused Prakash and Shiva alias Sevarama Hethvadia for offences under Sections 370(4), 342, 354- A, 376(2)(f), 376D, 506, 509 read with Section 34, 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; and Sections 5(f)/6, 5(g)/6 and 7/8 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3.16. After charge-sheet was filed before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur, the case was transferred to the POCSO Court, Jodhpur.
3.17. Learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments on charge vide his order dated 07.02.2014 framed charges against accused Asha Ram alias Ashumal for the offences punishable under Sections 370 (4), 342, 354A, 376(2)(f), 376D, 506, 509, 120B of Indian Penal Code, Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and Section 5(f)/6, 5(g)/6 and 7/8 of POCSO Act, 2012; against accused persons Ms. Sanchita alias Shilpi and Sharad Chandra alias Sharat Chandra for the offences punishable under Sections 342/34, 354A/34, 370(4), 376(2)(f), (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (10 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] read with Sections 120B/109, 376D, 506/34, 509/34, and Section 109/120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and Sections 5(f)/6 read with Sections 17, 5(g)/6, 7/8 read with Section 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and against accused persons Prakash and Shiva alias Sevaram for the offences punishable under Sections 370 (4), 342/34, 354-A/34, 376(2) (f), read with Sections 120-B and 109, 376-D, 506/34, 509/34, 109/120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(f)/6, 5(g)/6, 7/8 read with Section 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. However, accused persons Asha Ram, Shilpi and Sharad Chandra were discharged from the penal provisions of Section 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
3.18. All the accused persons were explained separately the charges framed against them. After hearing and understanding the charges framed, all the accused persons denied the charges (pleaded not guilty) and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE 3.19. From the side of prosecution, the statements of following witnesses were recorded:
Witness No. & Category Particulars of Testimony Name PW-1: Police Witness ASI who recorded the victim's initial Pushplata complaint in Delhi, facilitated her medical examination, and prepared documentation for her Section 164 statement.
PW-2: Police Witness Duty Officer at Police Station Kamla Nirpal Singh Market who registered the initial FIR No. 0/13 upon receiving the ruqa from ASI Pushpalata.
PW-3: Medical Gynaecologist at Lok Nayak Hospital who Dr. Shailja Witness conducted the medical examination of the victim and proved the clinical notes and medical certificate.
PW-4: Medical Medical Officer who conducted the initial Dr. RajenderSingh Witness physical examination of the victim and prepared her MLC sheet.
PW-5: Victim & Eye The prosecutrix who testified about being SU Witness misled into believing she was possessed (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (11 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] and provided a detailed account of the sexual assault by AsaramAsha Ram inside his kutiya.
PW-6: Material Owner of the farmhouse in Manai;
Ranjeet Witness confirmed building the kutiya for Asha Ram and that the victim's family stayed in an upstairs room from 14 to 16 August 2013.
PW-7: Material Representative of an NGO who conducted Kiran Jha Thakur Witness counselling for the minor victim at the police station on 20 August 2013.
PW-8: Medical Member of the Medical Board who
Dr. Shubhkaran Witness conducted the medical examination of the
accused, Asaram, on 1 September 2013.
PW-9: Medical Member of the Medical Board who
Dr. M. K. Chhabra Witness corroborated the testimony of PW-8
regarding the examination of the accused
at the R.A.C. Guest House.
PW-10: Medical Professor of Medicine and member of the
Dr. Arvind Jain Witness Medical Board that conducted the physical
examination of Asaram.
PW-11 Kripal Singh Material LIC agent and long-time follower who
Witness corroborated that the victim's father was
worried about his daughter being
"possessed by evil spirits" in August
2013.
PW-12: Relative Mother of the victim; testified about the
Sunita Singh Witness phone calls regarding her daughter's
illness, the trip to Jodhpur, and the
daughter's subsequent disclosure of
assault.
PW-13: Police Witness Deposed regarding the production of two
Omaram mobile phones (Samsung and Reliance)
by Uday Chhangani before the
investigating officer.
PW-14: Police Witness Witnessed the production of a Carbon
RameshchandraKhatik Company mobile phone on behalf of Uday
on 27 September 2013.
PW-15: Police Witness Malkhana In-charge who managed the
Kushala Ram Jaat storage of seized mobiles and CDs
containing scenes of "exorcism" and
activities involving girls at the ashram.
PW-16: Police Witness Carried evidence to the FSL in Jaipur and
Sandeep Kumar Jaat witnessed the recovery of a Blackberry
phone from the accused Shilpi.
PW-17: Police Witness Handled the official forwarding letters and
Prema Ram Jatt acknowledgment receipts for the
evidence sent to FSL Jaipur.
PW-18: Police Witness Procured and furnished the Call Detail
Jitendra Singh Records (CDRs) for the mobile numbers of
Rajpoot the accused persons and the complainant.
PW-19: Material Former close associate of Asaram who
Rahul K. Sachan Witness alleged witnessing past sexual
misconduct by the accused and the use of
intoxicants.
PW-20: Educational Principal who proved the victim's date of
Arvind Vajpeyi Witness birth as 04.07.1997 and reported
receiving threats and a live cartridge for
providing school records.
PW-21: Relative Father of the victim; detailed the family's
Karamvir Singh Witness devotion, the journey for "spiritual
treatment," and the events of the night
the assault occurred.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (12 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
PW-22: Material Son of the farmhouse owner; confirmed
Ramkishor @ Kishor Witness the family stayed in their house and
attended the satsang on 15 August 2013.
PW-23: Material Former manager who alleged Asaram
Mahendra Singh Witness habitually targeted young girls by
discouraging their education to maintain
religious influence.
PW-24: Hostile Witness A former worker who resiled from his
Gian Singh Bhadoria police statement, denying he purchased
or provided a Reliance SIM card to
Asaram in 2009.
PW-25: Police Witness Collected the victim's original admission
Pukhdas and age records from her school in
Shahjahanpur.
PW-26: Police Witness Conducted the videography of the victim's
Mahender Singh statement and the crime scene at the
Manai farmhouse.
PW-27 Satya Prakash Police Witness Witness to the arrest of Asaram and the
preparation of the site plan and spot
verification memos at Village Manai.
PW-28: Police Witness Assisted in seizing visitor registers, bank
Motiram records, and appointment letters from the
Chhindwara Ashram.
PW-29: Police Witness Witness to the arrests of Shiva, Prakash,
Papparam and Sharad Chandra; also witnessed the
transcription-- of the crime scene
videography.
PW-30: Police Witness SHO who assisted in the spot inspection
Ramdev identified by Asaram and the seizure of
records from the Chhindwara Gurukul
staff.
PW-31: Hostile Witness A follower who retracted his statement
Devender Pawar that a mobile SIM he purchased was used
by the accused Shilpi.
PW-32: Hostile Witness Denied providing a SIM at Asaram's
Nitin Bhalla instance, claiming he gave it to another
person during a satsang in Delhi.
PW-33: Ashram Staff Principal of Chhindwara Gurukul;
Vivek Sharma produced the victim's Class XII
attendance records and transfer
certificates.
PW-34: Ashram Staff Warden of the Boys' Hostel; produced
Sushil gate registers and confirmed the father's
visit to the Gurukul on 8 August 2013.
PW-36: Ashram Staff Warden of the Girls' Hostel; testified that
Neha Totlani no illness was recorded for the victim and
spoke about the victim's conduct.
PW-37: Ashram Staff Ashram volunteer who provided
Shri Ram Kashyap documents related to the administration
and bank operations, including Shilpi's
appointment letter.
PW-38: Investigation & Reader at the DCP office who served
Babu Singh Law summons to the accused and obtained
Enforcement passport details of the accused. He also
recorded witness statements in
Ahmedabad and collected registration and
Income Tax records related to the
Ashram.
PW-39: Material A former Sewadar who testified about
Ajay Kumar Witness (Prior historical mismanagement and alleged
Misconduct) sexual misconduct involving the accused
and Narayan Sai dating back to 1995. He
claimed to have seen girls being taken to
the "Sant Kutiya" late at night and was
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (13 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
later assaulted for inquiring into these
activities.
PW-40: Official Record A Sewadar at the Ahmedabad Ashram
Uday Sangani & Document who produced various records for the
Witness police, including the Hostel Manual (Ex. P-
81), employee lists, and mobile phones
(Articles 4, 5, and 6) belonging to the
accused persons.
PW-41: Investigation The SHO who registered the FIR (Ex. P-
Mukta Parik &Law 106) and conducted significant portions of
Enforcement the investigation in Chhindwara. She
seized school and hostel records, proved
the arrest of the accused, and ultimately
filed the charge-sheet after concluding a
criminal conspiracy existed.
PW-42: Material An Ashram member since 1985 who
Sudha Ben Witness testified that she never witnessed any
(Hostile) misconduct. She was declared hostile by
the prosecution after she resiled from her
previous police statement.
PW-43: Investigation & The Primary Investigating Officer who
ACP Chanchal Mishra Law oversaw the entire case. She recorded
Enforcement statements, conducted site inspections at
(I.O.) Manai, and coordinated the collection of
medical, academic, and forensic
evidence. She proved the conspiracy
narrative and the accused's role in the
assault.
PW-44: Technical & The Nodal Officer for Reliance
Vinay Kumar Nodal Evidence Communication who provided Call Detail
Records (CDRs) (Ex. P-141 to P-148) for
the accused and the victim's family. He
verified the authenticity and integrity of
the digital communication records used as
evidence.
3.20. The prosecution in support of its case submitted documents Ex.P-
1 to Ex.P-161 and also produced 30 articles, which are as under:
PROSECUTION DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (EXHIBITS P-1 TO P-161) Witness/Person who Exhibit Date of Description of Document Proved/Produced the No. Exhibition Exhibit PW-1 (Pushplata) / PW-3 Ex P-1 to Victim's Medical/Injury Reports 19.03.14 (Dr. Shailja) / PW-4 (Dr. Ex P-3 (Lok Nayak Hospital) Rajender Singh) PW-1 (Pushplata) / PW-5 Ex P-4 Written Complaint by Victim 19.03.14 (Victim) Ex P-5 to Statements and Applications PW-1 (Pushplata) / PW-43 19.03.14 Ex P-7 u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Chanchal Mishra) Ex P-8A Police Station Diary Entries and PW-1 (Pushplata) / PW-35 to Ex P- 19.03.14 Information Letters (Nitin Deve) 10A Ex P-11 to Ex P- Chak--FIR (Dated 20.08.2013) 20.03.14 PW-2 (Nirpal Singh) 11B Clinical Note/Medical Report Ex P-12 04.04.14 PW-4 (Dr. Rajender Singh) (Lok Nayak Hospital) (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (14 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] Ex P-13 PW-5 (Victim) / PW-27 Map of Incident Place and Site to Ex P- 15.04.14 (Satya Prakash) / PW-41 Inspection Memos 14 (Mukta Parik) / PW-43 Victim's Letter to Police 15.04.15 PW-5 (Victim) / PW-41 Ex P-15 Commissioner, Jodhpur [sic] (Mukta Parik) Ex P-16 Photographs of Ashram, PW-5 / PW-26 (Mahendra to Ex P- 21.04.14 Cottage, and Incident Scene Singh) / PW-41 / PW-43 32 Ex P-33 PW-8 (Dr. Shubhkaran) / Medical Board Orders (MDM to Ex P- 07.02.14 PW-9 (Dr. M.K. Chhabra) / Hospital) 33A PW-10 (Dr. Arvind Jain) Accused Asaram Medical Board PW-8 / PW-9 / PW-10 / PW-
Ex P-34 18.07.14 Report 43 Memo of Dual Sim Mobiles PW-13 (Oma Rao) / PW-40 Ex P-35 26.04.14 (Produced by Uday Sangani) (Udai) PW-14 (Ramesh Chandra) / Memo of Reliance Mobile, Ex P-36 01.10.14 PW-30 (Ramdev) / PW-40 / Battery, and SIM PW-43 Ex P-37 Malkhana Register Entries PW-15 (Khusalram) / PW- to Ex P- 01.10.14 (Women's Police Station) 41 / PW-43 37/3 Memo of Download --(Accused Ex P-38 01.10.14 PW-30 (Ramdev) / PW-43 Shiva) PW-15 (Khusalram) / PW- Ex P-39 FSL Acknowledgement/Receipt 01.10.14 16 (Sandeep Kumar) / PW- 17 (Prema Rao) PW-15 (Khusalram) / PW- Ex P-40 FSL Report (Dated 20.09.2013) 01.10.14 43 Ex P-41 Memo of Investigation DVD 01.10.14 PW-15 / PW-30 PW-16 (Sandeep Kumar) / Letter to send --Malkhana to Ex P-42 02.12.14 PW-17 (Prema Rao) / PW- FSL 43 Seizure Memo-- (Accused Ms. PW-16 (Sandeep Kumar) / Ex P-43 02.12.14 Shilpi) PW-43 Call Details and Analysis Charts PW-18 (Jitendra Singh) / Ex P-44 04.12.14 of Accused Persons PW-43 Ex P-45 Victim's School Admission PW-20 (Arvind Vajyapi) / to Ex P- 06.12.14 Records and Birth Certificate PW-25 (Pukhdas) 47 Ex P-48 FIR Copies (Police Station to Ex P- 09.12.14 PW-20 (Arvind Vajyapi) SadarKotwaliShahjahanpur) 49 PW-20 (Arvind Vajyapi) / Ex P-50 Birth Certificate Photocopy 13.01.15 Produced during supplemental proceedings Statement of Witness Gyan PW-24 (Gyan Singh Ex P-51 09.02.15 Singh Bhadoria Bhadoria) Arrest/Seizure Memo of PW-27 (Satya Prakash) / Ex P-52 08.02.15 Accused Asha Ram PW-41 / PW-43 Ex P-53 Crime Detail Report (CDR) and to Ex P- 21.02.15 PW-27 / PW-30 / PW-43 Site Inspection Memos 54 Memo of Production Record Ex P-55 21.02.15 PW-27 / PW-40 / PW-43 (Uday) Ex P-56 Production Memos of PW-28 (Moti Ram) / PW-34 to Ex P- 23.02.15 Ashram/School Records (Sushil) / PW-41 / PW-43 58 (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (15 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] Ex P-59 Seizure Memos of Mobiles/SIMs to Ex P- 23.02.15 PW-28 / PW-41 / PW-43 (Accused Sharad) 60 Seizure Memo of Records (Ms. PW-28 / PW-36 (Neha Ex P-61 23.02.15 Neha Totlani) Totlani) / PW-41 / PW-43 Ex P-62 Power of Attorney and Board PW-28 / PW-37 (Sriram to Ex P- 23.02.15 Resolutions Kashyap) / PW-41 / PW-43 64 Ex P-65 Victim's School Certificates PW-28 / PW-33 (Vivek to Ex P- 23.02.15 (Transfer/Leaving) Sharma) / PW-41 / PW-43 66 Appointment Letter of Accused PW-28 / PW-37 / PW-40 / Ex P-67 23.02.15 Sanchita Gupta PW-41 / PW-43 PW-29 (Papparam) / PW-30 Ex P-68 Arrest Memo of Accused Shiva 24.02.15 / PW-43 Ex P-69 Transcription Memo and to Ex P- 24.02.15 PW-29 / PW-30 / PW-43 Videography Records 70 Ex P-71 Arrest Memos (Accused PW-29 / PW-38 (Babu to Ex P- 24.02.15 Prakash and Sharad) Singh) / PW-43 72 Search Memo (Residential Ex P-73 26.02.15 PW-30 (Ramdev) / PW-43 Place of Accused Prakash) Intimation Memo u/s 27 Ex P-74 26.02.15 PW-30 (Ramdev) (Accused Sanchita) Ex P-75 Statement of Devendra Pawar 02.03.15 PW-31 (Devender Pawar) Ex P-76 Statement of Nitin Bhalla 04.03.15 PW-32 (Nitin Bhalla) Ex P-77 School Attendance and PW-33 (Vivek Sharma) / to Ex P- 11.03.15 Guardian Documents PW-41 / PW-43 84 Ex P-85 Leave Applications (Victim and PW-36 (Neha Totlani) / PW- to Ex P- 19.03.15 Bhavya Shukla) 41 / PW-43 87 Ex P-88 Police Reports and FIRs PW-38 (Babu Singh) / PW- to Ex P- March 2015 (Gujarat Police Stations) 43 102 Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. PW-39 (Ajay Kumar) --/ Ex P-103 09.10.13 (Ajay Kumar) -- PW-43Chanchal Mishra List of workers of Chhindwara Ex P-104 13.04.15 PW-40 (Udai) Girls Hostel Warden Correspondence to ACP Ex P-105 15.04.15 PW-40 (Udai) West Ex P-106 FIR No. 122/13 (Jodhpur) 22.04.15 PW-41 (Mukta Parikh) Ex P-107 Educational Certificates and PW-35 (Nitin Deve) / PW-41 to Ex P- 2015 Health Records / PW-33 116 PW-42 (Sudha Ben) / PW- Ex P-117 Police Statement of Sudha Ben 08.07.15 43 Ex P-118 Revenue Records (Manai to Ex P- July 2015 PW-43 (Chanchal Mishra) Village) 120 Ex P-121 Information Memos u/s 27 to Ex P- July 2015 PW-43 (Chanchal Mishra) (Accused Persons) 124 Arrest Memo (Accused Ex P-125 16.07.15 PW-43 (Chanchal Mishra) Sanchita Gupta @ Shilpi) (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (16 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] Website Printouts of Ashram Ex P-126 16.07.15 PW-43 (Chanchal Mishra) Addresses Ex P-127 Railway Reservation Charts to Ex P- July 2015 PW-43 (Chanchal Mishra) (Jodhpur) 128 Ex P-129 Mobile/Call Detail Analysis and to Ex P- July 2015 PW-43 (Chanchal Mishra) Charts 139 Ex P-140 Official Call Detail Records and PW-44 (Vinay Kumar to Ex P- 2016 Certificates Sharma) 149 Ex P-150 Supplemental School Records Produced during re- to Ex P- 2017 and Electoral Roll App. examination / PW-43 161
PROSECUTION PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (ARTICLES 1 TO 30) Article No. Description Associated Exhibit/Witness PS Kamla Market Diary Entries Article-1 Ex P-8A, P-9, P-10 / PW-1 (Register No. 2) FIR Register (PS Kamla Market 2011-
Article-2 Ex P-11 / PW-2
13)
Women's Help Desk --2013 PS Kamla Note: Contains Defence
Article-3
Market Exhibit Ex D-1.
Article-4 Samsung Mobile Ex P-35 / PW-13 / PW-40
Article-5 Reliance LG Mobile Ex P-35 / PW-13 / PW-40
Article-6 Carbon Company Mobile (White) Ex P-36 / PW-14 / PW-40
Article-7 Nokia Mobile SIM PW-15 / PW-30 / PW-43
Black Mobile (Virgin Company) with
Article-8 PW-15 / PW-30 / PW-43
SIM
Article-9 Compact Disc (C.D.) PW-15 / PW-43
Article-10-
DVD (Quantity: 5) PW-15 / PW-43
14
DVD: Videography of Victim's
Article-15 PW-26 / PW-43
Statements (21.08.13)
Article-15 Attendance Register (12th Class,
PW-33 / PW-41
(bis) Asaram Gurukul)
Sealed CD: Videography of Spot
Article-16 PW-26 / PW-30
Inspection
Article-16 Attendance Register (11th Class,
PW-33 / PW-41
(bis)-- Asaram Gurukul)
Article-17 Girls Hostel Register (Chhindwara) PW-34 / PW-36 / PW-41
Entry Book (Asha Ram Gurukul Boys
Article-18 PW-34 / PW-41
Hostel Main Gate)
Girls Hostel Medical Register
Article-19 PW-36 / PW-41
(Chhindwara)
Samsung Reliance Mobile, SIM, and
Article-20 PW-41 / PW-43
Battery
Article-21-
Eight Reliance SIMs PW-41 (Mukta Parikh)
28
Article-29 Airtel SIM PW-41 (Mukta Parikh)
Article-30 Docomo SIM PW-41 (Mukta Parikh)
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (17 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
3.21. From the side of defence, the statements of following witnesses were recorded:
Witness No. & Category Particulars of Testimony Name Alleged that on 21/08/2013, the victim admitted she had fabricated the case with her parents and DW-01:
School & Hostel others to defame the accused. She also testified Ms. Charul Environment that the victim had an improper relationship with Arora a teacher, Pankaj Dubey, and possessed prohibited mobile phones.
Stated that the accused was in seclusion at Manai and no public satsang was held during the night of DW-02: Channa Alibi &Manai the alleged incident. He challenged the timing of Ram Kumawat Presence photographs presented by the prosecution and denied witnessing any assault.
Provided an alibi by stating his family was at the DW-03: Arjun Alibi &Manai Manai farmhouse for an engagement (Roka) Kumar Tekwani Presence ceremony on 14/08/2013 and 15/08/2013. He denied that the accused practiced occult rituals. Confirmed her presence at the Roka ceremony on 15/08/2013 and stated the program lasted until DW-04: Alibi &Manai nearly midnight, which challenges the SushilaChelani Presence prosecution's timeline. She estimated the victim's age at 19-20 years.
A school principal who deposed about certain school records Ex D/6A, Ex D/7A, Ex D/8A and Ex.
DW-05: Jaya Official Records P-150 regarding the victim's age. She also testified Kamat & Documents that the victim's name was changed from Shubham Devi to Supriya Singh.
A farmhouse resident who stated the victim appeared normal and cheerful and shared meals DW-06: Alibi &Manai with the family. She denied the cottage was Vishnu Devada Presence exclusive to the accused and estimated the victim's age as 20-22 years.
Testified about the victim's character, alleged outings with a teacher (Pankaj Dubey), and DW-07: School & Hostel reported seeing them together. She also Megha Sharma Environment--
mentioned the victim's original name was Shubham Devi.
A room warden who claimed the victim's 18th DW-09: School & Hostel birthday was celebrated in August 2013, Kumari Reena Environment-- contradicting the claim that she was a minor. She denied any "possession by spirits" occurred.
Claimed the victim stayed in her company the entire night of 15/08/2013 and had requested DW-10: Alibi &Manai sanitary pads for menstruation. She stated the Manisha Devra Presence victim slept in a room with other women, not in the cottage.
Alleged the victim's parents provided a false DW-11: School & Hostel birthdate in school records for government Vidhya Environment-- benefits. She described the victim as "disobedient"
and noted she was weak in her studies.
Alleged that material prosecution witnesses (Rahul DW-12: Conspiracy & Sachan, etc.) were motivated by money and had Sangeeta Character been expelled for misconduct. She mentioned reading a 2008 extortion fax demanding ₹50 crore. Highlighted the accused's disaster relief and social DW-13: Social Work & work. He alleged Rahul Sachan had a "bad Yogesh Bhati Conspiracy character" and corroborated the existence of a ₹50 crore extortion threat in 2008.
DW-14: Alibi &Manai A security guard who testified he was on duty at Madan Singh Presence the cottage gate from 8:00 PM to midnight on (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (18 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] 15/08/2013 and witnessed no incident. He stated the accused was away until midnight.
Claimed the victim's DOB was 06.08.1995 and her DW-15: Conspiracy & original name was Shubham Devi. He alleged Ram Mehar Records overhearing a conspiracy meeting at a dhaba in 2013 to frame the accused for ₹50 crore extortion. A researcher who conducted psychological profiling DW-16: Expert of the accused, concluding he was mentally sound AnchalKumawat Testimony and had been observing celibacy for forty years. Testified about the accused's visit to Gurgaon, DW-17: Character & Fact describing his interactions with a child as showing Sanjay Kumar Witness "parental affection" rather than misconduct.
DW-18: A wrestler who testified to the accused's character
Character &
Rakesh Kumar and his promotion of celibacy and parent-worship
Social Work
Singh activities since the year 2000.
A clinic employee who alleged seeing the victim's DW-19: Conspiracy & father and others planning a conspiracy at a clinic Jigyasa Bhavsar Extortion to plant sexual allegations and send an extortion fax.
A psychologist who evaluated the accused and DW-20:
Expert found him mentally stable and resilient, concluding
Dr. Shilpa
Testimony he was "incapable of committing any sexual
Aggarwal
misconduct".
DW-21: A journalist who claimed the victim's family tried
Conspiracy &
Brijender to find a lawyer in Jaipur to file a "false case" on
Journalist
Sharma 16/08/2013 before they eventually went to Delhi.
Alleged a conspiracy involving Bholanand to extort DW-22: Investigation & money. He also claimed to have seen obscene Vikrant Sharma Jammu SIT messages exchanged between the victim and teacher Pankaj Dubey.
Claimed Bholanand asked her to find girls to make DW-23: Investigation & false sexual allegations against the accused in Pooja Devi Jammu SIT exchange for money and protection.
An advocate who testified the victim told him in his DW-24: Conspiracy & chambers that no misconduct had occurred and Suresh Kumar Advocate she was only acting on her father's directions. An RTO official who produced licensing records for DW-25: Official Records the victim's brother to challenge the family's Rambachan & Documents reported ages and history.
A public servant who produced ration card records DW-26: Official Records from 2005to highlight age inconsistencies in the Uday Singh & Documents victim's family history.
An investigating officer from the Jammu SIT who DW-27: Investigation & detailed the probe into the alleged conspiracy by Angrez Singh Jammu SIT Bholanand and others against the ashram. Provided testimony regarding birth register DW-28: Official Records records from 1990; noted they lacked official seals Dr. Amit Kumuir & Documents and informant signatures.
A member of the Jammu SIT --who corroborated DW-29: Investigation & the investigation into the conspiracy narrative Suresh Sharma Jammu SIT involving Bholanand and Pankaj Dubey. DW-30: An election official who testified regarding age Official Records Vinay Prakash entries in electoral rolls, noting that human or & Documents Srivastava printing errors are common in such records. DW-31: A Nodal Officer for Reliance who provided Call Investigation & Deepak Detail Records (CDRs) that were used by the Technical Gandotra Jammu police in their conspiracy investigation.
3.22. The defence in support of its case submitted documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-225 and also produced 5 articles, which are as under:
DEFENCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (EX.D-1 TO EX.D-225) (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (19 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] Witness who Proved / Exhibit No. Document Description Presented EXD-1 Women Help Desk Register entry PW-1 ASI Pushplata (Article-3) PW-5 "Su" (during cross-
EXD-2 Victim "Su" Police Statement
examination)
Apology Letter written by Victim "Su"
EXD-3 PW-5 "Su" / DW-7 Megha Sharma
Singh
Written NGO Report by Kiran Jha PW-5 "Su" / PW-7 Kiran Jha
EXD-4
Thakur Thakur
EXD-5 Shahjahanpur Assembly Voter List DW-30 Vinay Prakash Srivastava
Admission Form of Shubham Devi
EXD-6 / 6A PW-5 "Su" / DW-5 Jaya Kamat
(Mumukshu Ashram)
EXD-7 / 7A Registration Form of Shubham Devi PW-5 "Su" / DW-5 Jaya Kamat
Scholar's Register & Transfer
EXD-8 / 8A PW-5 "Su" / DW-5 Jaya Kamat
Certificate of Victim
EXD-9 to Affidavits of Karamveer Singh PW-21 Karamveer Singh / DW-5
13A (Multiple pages) Jaya Kamat
EXD-15 Police Statement of Pushplata PW-1 ASI Pushplata
EXD-16 / Birth Certificate / Birth Register PW-12 Sunita Singh / DW-28 Dr.
16B (Karnvir/Somvir) Amit Kumar
PW-12 Sunita Singh / PW-43
EXD-17 Police statement of Mrs. Sunita Singh
Chanchal Mishra
EXD-18 Victim "Su" Leave Application PW-12 Sunita Singh
EXD-20A / Driving License Register (Somvir PW-12 Sunita Singh / DW-25 Ram
20B Singh) Vachan
EXD-21 to Photos of Satsang at Manai DW-2 Channaram / DW-3 Arjun
24 (15.08.2013) Tekwani
EXD-26 /
Photo of Asha Ram Ji under Neem tree DW-3 Arjun Kumar Tekwani
26A
EXD-27 to Sewakarya Forms (Karamveer family
PW-21 Karamveer Singh
31 members)
EXD-38 /
Vaccination / Survey Register PW-12 Sunita Singh
38A
EXD-40 / Ration Card Application Form PW-12 Sunita Singh / DW-26 Udai
40A (Ramdiya) Singh
EXD-42 Victim "Su" original LIC form PW-12 Sunita Singh
EXD-45 Search Memo (Shilpi) PW-16 Sandeep Kumar
Child Registration and Transfer
EXD-47 PW-20 Arvind Vajpayee
Certificate
Certified Photos of Transport
EXD-60 / 61 PW-21 Karamveer Singh
Companies
EXD-69 Proof of Somvir's driving license DW-25 Ram Vachan
EXD-74 Voter List of Karamvir Singh (2012) DW-30 Vinay Prakash Srivastava
EXD-75 Copy of Nutrition Register PW-21 Karamveer Singh
EXD-81 /
Ration Card Details PW-43 Chanchal Mishra
81A
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (20 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
PW-21 Karamveer Singh / PW-43
EXD-82 Police Statement of Karamvir Singh
Chanchal Mishra
Affidavit and letters by Shailesh
EXD-99 PW-43 Chanchal Mishra
Kumar (Bhavya's father)
EXD-100/1- Online Weather Reports (August
PW-43 Chanchal Mishra
7 2013)
EXD-101-
RTI documents / Police Journal copies PW-43 Chanchal Mishra
106
EXD-107- PW-43 Chanchal Mishra / DW-22
Call Details (Jammu investigation)
111 Vikrant Sharma
DW-22 Vikrant Sharma / DW-27
EXD-114 First Information Report (Jammu)
Angrez Singh
EXD-115 / CFSL Chandigarh Voice Report (Vinod
DW-27 Angrez Singh
115A Gupta)
EXD-117 Teacher Prayer Form (Pankaj Dubey) PW-43 Chanchal Mishra
EXD-118 Customer Application Form (Reliance) PW-43 Chanchal Mishra
EXD-122 / Urdu to English Translation &
PW-43 Chanchal Mishra
123 Certificate
EXD-129 Photocopy of Malkhana Register PW-43 Chanchal Mishra
EXD-131 FIR (Gurgaon) regarding Media Trial DW-17 Sanjay Kumar
EXD-132 List of Nodal Officers PW-44 Vinay Kumar Sharma
EXD-133- Photos of Victim
DW-1 Charul Arora
141 (WhatsApp/Facebook)
EXD-142- Commendation Letters
DW-13 Yogesh Bhati
155 (President/Gov/CM)
EXD-158- Photos of Asaram visiting Sanjay
DW-17 Sanjay Kumar
160 Kumar's house
EXD-185 Fax Message (Extortion threat) DW-19 Jigyasa Bhavsar
EXD-187-
Academic Degrees (Shilpa Agrawal) DW-20 Dr. Shilpa Aggarwal
191
EXD-192-
Questionnaires for AsaramAsha Ram DW-20 Dr. Shilpa Aggarwal
195
EXD-197-
Journalist Press Cards DW-21 Brijender Sharma
198
EXD-203 / Complaint to Jammu Court
DW-22 Vikrant Sharma
203A (Original/Copy)
EXD-204 / Script of Conversation (Vikrant DW-22 Vikrant Sharma / DW-27
204A &Bholanand) Angrez Singh
EXD-211 / Seizure Memo and CDRs (Pankaj DW-22 Vikrant Sharma / DW-27
212 Dubey) Angrez Singh
EXD-216 /
Original Ration Register Page (2005) DW-26 Udai Singh
216A
EXD-221 /
CDRs of Pankaj Dubey and others DW-31 Deepak Gandotra
224
EXD-222 Section 65-B Evidence Act Certificate DW-31 Deepak Gandotra
Customer Application Form (Pankaj
EXD-225 DW-31 Deepak Gandotra
Dubey)
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (21 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
DEFENCE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (ARTICLES D-1 TO D-5) Article No. Description Article D-1 Compact Disk: Chindwara Satsang CD dated 25-03-2015 Article D-2 Compact Disk: Ahmedabad Satsang CD dated 25-03-2015 Article D-3 Compact Disk: Delhi Satsang CD dated 25-03-2015 Article D-1 (bis) DVD photographs (Regions D-161 to D-163 and D-165 to D-171) Article D-4 Compact Disk: Asha Ramji Pravachan dated 16.04.2015 Article D-5 Original CD presented by Witness Vikrant Sharma 3.23. Following questions were framed by the learned Trial Court (English translation):
"(1) Whether the age of prosecutrix was less than 18 years on 15.08.2013? Therefore, whether she comes within the category of child as defined in Section 2(D) of Protection of Children Act? (2) Whether the accused Asha Ram by committing an act of wrongful confinement, prevented prosecutrix girl child to go beyond a certain limit on 15.08.2013 at about 10 p.m. in the Kutiya situated in Manai Ashram and inflicted sexual harassment to her and on her resistance, extended threats to her and by threatening to kill her parents, exercised assault/criminal form towards her and by extending threats to cause physical injury and to kill her parents, with a motive to terrorize her, caused criminal intimidation and with a motive to disrespect her modesty, violated her seclusion by uttering obscene words and molesting her and with a sexual intent, touched the vagina, urethra and chest of the prosecutrix girl child and caused stimulating penetrative sexual assault/rape?
A. If yes, whether the act of penetrative sexual assault committed on the aforesaid date, time and place by the accused Asha Ram upon the prosecutrix girl child had been committed while remaining in the capacity of a manager of the religious organization/trust?
B. Whether the aforesaid rape committed by the accused Asha Ram with the prosecutrix on the aforesaid date, time and place was committed by him while remaining in the capacity of a trustee or authority towards her by extending threats to her and against her wishes?
(3) Whether the accused persons Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra, Ms. Sanchita @ Shilpi, Prakash and Shiva @ Savaram at any time prior to 15.08.2013, hatched a criminal conspiracy in connivance and collusion with the accused Asha Ram having sole motive to inflict sexual abuse to the prosecutrix girl child on behalf of the accused Asha Ram and to commit rape with her and for this purpose, the aforesaid accused persons constituted a group and the aforesaid criminal conspiracy functioning in the furtherance of common intention, provided aid to him and for the purpose of exploitation of the prosecutrix girl child, committed an act of misdemeanor by means of fraud, deceit, inducement etc. consequent upon which, the accused Asha Ram committed offence as described in Issue No. 2 against the prosecutrix/girl child?
(4) Whether the accused persons namely Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra, Ms. Sanchita @ Shilpi and the accused Asha Ram @ Ashumal having genuine influence and control over the prosecutrix/girl child, assaulted her and caused undue mental and physical injury to her?
(5) If yes, the accused persons are liable to be punished for which offence."
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (22 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
4. By dealing with and deciding these questions, learned Trial Court, vide its judgement dated 25.04.2018, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as already enumerated above in the introductory part. Hence, the instant set of appeals.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
5. Grounds of appeal taken from DB Crl.Appeal No. 123/2018 filed by Asha Ram @ Ashumal are summarized below :
(a) Learned Trial Judge erred in appreciating the evidence;
(b) Learned Trial Judge failed in his duty to restrain adverse media propaganda against the appellant;
(c) Trial was vitiated by the adverse media propaganda against the appellant;
(d) The investigating agency and the prosecution consciously acted in a manner to poison the atmosphere against the appellant and make it impossible to examine the issues of fact and law dispassionately;
(e) FIR was lodged after inordinate delay and that too at Delhi, a place other than jurisdictional police station by pre-concert and deep planned and the learned Trial Court failed to find out the real reasons behind this course;
(f) Learned Trial Judge failed to examine the flaws and dishonest manipulations during investigation;
(g) Learned Trial Judge erred in determining the age of prosecutrix;
(h) Learned Trial Judge did not properly examine and evaluate the testimony of the prosecutrix, who was the star witness and also of the other witnesses and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on material issues of fact are wrong;
(i) Learned Trial Judge misinterpreted the provisions about presumption contained in Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012;
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (23 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
(j) The prosecution had miserably failed to prove the commission of offence defined under Section 375 IPC, punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC but the Learned Trial Judge wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the same;
(k) The ingredients of Section 376(D) IPC were not made out and the conviction and sentence for the same are wholly unwarranted;
(l) Prosecution also failed to prove the offences under Sections 370, 342 and 506 IPC;
(m) Offence under Section 120B IPC had not been proved. In any case the Learned Trial Judge acted in a contradictory manner. This offence is independently punishable even if the act of conspiracy is not done or attempted. Yet, the Learned Trial Judge, having recorded the conviction under Section 120-B IPC, did not award any independent punishment for the said offence.
(n) Prosecution had failed to prove that qua the appellant, provisions of Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act were attracted in the case.
6. Besides some of the aforesaid grounds with some difference in language, appellants Shilpi @ Sanchita and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra also asserted in their appeals that it had not been proved that at the time of allegedly asking the parents of the prosecutrix to take her to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal, they had any knowledge regarding future offences to be committed by him.
7. We have heard the learned counsels for parties at length and with their able assistance gone through record.
ARGUMENTS, DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
8. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned Senior Counsel instructed and assisted by Mr. Rajesh Inamdar and Mr. Nishant Bora, Advocates for the appellant-
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (24 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] Asha Ram advanced a multi-pronged challenge to the prosecution's case, endeavoring to dismantling each and every charge and thus seeking hon'ble acquittal. He advanced arguments in line with the grounds of appeal, inter alia, contending that the event of may 2013, the alleged genesis of the conspiracy, more particularly the events between 02.08.2013 and 09.08.2013, the alleged acts attributed to accused nos. 2 and 3, the events between 09.08.2013 and 14.08.2013, the movement of the prosecutrix with her parents, the event of 14.08.2013, and the alleged meeting of appellant at Manai, with reference to 'Bhootwali Ladki', do not establish any culpability, direct or indirect; therefore, the offence under Section 370 is not made out, nor is Section 120B attracted; similarly, events relating to the main allegation under Section 376 r/w Section 376D, namely kissing the private part, removal of the salwar, or disrobing the victim, coupled with the Medical Report of the prosecutrix revealing an intact hymen and absence of injuries, do not establish guilt; merely the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be treated as gospel truth without corroboration; imposing the maximum punishment of life imprisonment for the remainder of life under Section 376(2)(f) is disproportionate and without jurisdiction; the offence under Section 376D is not made out; the unnatural conduct of the prosecutrix and her family, both before and after the alleged occurrence, coupled with other fatal illegalities / defects, namely absence of scientific or FSL testing by the prosecution, failure to summon the FSL and technical team for inspection and DNA analysis of the scene of crime, lack of objectivity and fairness in the investigation conducted by the IO, non-applicability of the provisions of the POCSO and JJ Acts to the present case, and erroneous reliance on the matriculation certificate Exh. P-107A, strike at the very root of the prosecution story; the Ld. Trial Court ought to have correctly (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (25 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] determined the age of the prosecutrix; the probable motive for false implication was not properly considered; Sections 342, 354A, and 506 of IPC were not proved beyond reasonable doubt; Material Improvements Masquerading as elaboration were disregarded by the trial Court; the prosecution was required to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, which it failed to do; and the conviction and sentence of the Appellant - Asha Ram appear to rest on moral grounds.
9. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Praveen Vyas, Advocate appearing for the appellant Sharat Chandra (co-accused), inter alia, argued that the prosecution has built a case that suggests the co-accused was involved in a long chain of criminal activity (A → B → C). However, they have only proved, if at all, his involvement in act A. For them to be convict, acts B and C, which involve future crime viz. rape, it must be proved that at the time the other co-accused/appellants herein committed act A, they had a clear, conscious knowledge, or intent, to commit the specific subsequent acts B and C. Since no such evidence proving this necessary future intent of their minds has been produced, charges against them qua all the offenses must fail. In other words, at its heart, this argument is a direct challenge to the Mens Rea element required by the prosecution. He would rely on the elementary of criminal law viz. Actus Reus and Mens Rea to canvass that while their actions (asking the parents to take victim to the prime accused) may have constituted an actus reus, but the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary corresponding mens rea regarding future acts. They can only be responsible for what they knew, or reasonably ought to have known. A successful charge of conspiracy requires proof that all parties agreed, at some point in time, to commit an illegal act (or series of acts). If the co-accused lacked knowledge of the future scope of the crime, the agreement required for a criminal conspiracy clearly does not exist.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (26 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] 9.1. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the deception charge fails at the threshold, at the three stages i.e. neither the FIR nor the NGO report nor even statement under Section 164 CrPC record any interaction between the appellant Sharat Chandra and 'Su'. Section 120B IPC could not have been invoked for a vague, open-ended incident allegedly occurring on 15.08.2013, particularly when the principal offence itself is not established. The appellant committed no harbouring under Section 370 IPC. Ingredients thereof are completely amiss. The allegation is merely that he sent 'Su', which is no offence in law. On Section 376D IPC, the appellant was absent from the scene entirely. Moreover, having been acquitted under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC on the ground of non-presence and non-participation, the same common intention cannot be differently construed to sustain a conviction under Section 376D, the two conclusions are legally irreconcilable. The POCSO charges equally cannot stand, given the admitted position that the appellant was never at the scene of crime. Senior Counsel also pointed out that the subsequent testimonies of the victim and her parents show marked improvement over their earlier Section 161/164 CrPC statements and the original FIR version regarding the role attributed to his clients, and the same must therefore be discarded to that extent.
9.2. Qua the co-appellant Sanchita, Mr. Kamat learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Deepak Menaria, Advocate would adopt the arguments of Mr. Vinit Jain, except where in conflict with their stand taken qua Asha Ram. He would also argue that she had to join the school only recently in March, 2013 and hardly even knew the appellant Asha Ram enough so as to have meeting of mind with him of any kind. He would urge when the co-accused had no knowledge of the future at all and/or of the full scope of the crime alleged, the ingredients essential qua criminal conspiracy are plainly absent. An alleged conspirator cannot be bound by acts she/he (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (27 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] neither knew of nor agreed to do, either by omission or commission. Thus, the entire prosecution case against her collapses on that count alone, is the argument.
10. While, on the other hand, Mr. Deepak Choudhary, the learned State Counsel and Mr. P.C. Solanki, learned counsel for the victim/complainant argued in support of the impugned judgment seeking upholding of convictions of all the appellants on every count with no leniency on the sentence already awarded to them.
11. Before we commence the discussion and analysis, a caveat here. Apart from the arguments noted above, the succeeding part of this judgment canvas a fuller landscape of contentions, many of them common across all three appellants, woven into our discussion and analysis that follows.
11.1. In latter part of this judgment, the convictions of appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal have not been upheld for offences under Sections 120B, 34 and 376D IPC and Sections 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act and the convictions of appellants Shilpi @ Sanchita and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra for offences under Section 370(4) read with Section 120B IPC and Section 376D IPC and Section 5(g)/6 and 7/8 of POCSO Act and the same are being set aside. Our discussion and conclusions here after reached against the various other offences is recorded accordingly.
12. Mr. Kamat, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the FIR was lodged after inordinate delay and that too at Delhi, a place other than jurisdictional Police station by pre-concert and deep planning and the learned Trial Court failed to find out the real reasons behind this course. We are unable to accept the contention.
13. The learned Trial Court elaborately dealt with the said contention in paras 256 to 260 of the impugned judgment and by recording detailed reasons rejected the contention that the prosecution had failed to explain (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (28 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] the delay intervening the commission of offence on 15.08.2013 and the registration of FIR on 20.08.2013 at 2.50 AM. Summing up its reasons and found as under:
"Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed the opinion in the reverent decision of "Deepak vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 65/2012" decided on 10th March 2015, the delay in filing of an FIR, in sex crime, is due to various reasons. Two weeks after the incident in the said case, the prosecutor told his mother about the incident, who promptly filed a lawsuit in the police station. In the above episode, the victim's photograph was taken by the accused and recorded her words on mobile too and he was scaring of her with the above evidence. The situation of the case, in hand, is even not different. The victim appears to be scared of the accused's stature and powers and the person whom she worships as god, by doing such a horrible act by him, her thought process will surely get numb. In my humble opinion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has given sufficient clarification of the delay of 5 days for filing an FIR. Hence, the argument of the defendant is not acceptable. Here, this argument is also given by the learned counsels for the accused persons, if the victim was so scared of accused Asha Ram, why did she come with her father to meet Asha Ram in the ongoing Satsang in Delhi? In my humble opinion, till the girl did not provide information about the incident to her family, she was not confident whether her family members, enchanted with Asha Ram's hypnosis, would rely on her or not. But, once she has reported about the incident to her parents on the pressure of the mother and the parents, who stood by her, resolved by asking the accused Asha Ram to meet him in this regard, then the girl got this courage because her parents are with her, so should go with them and ask Asha Ram why he committed such an act? Certainly, in case of happening of any incident, if the parents of the victim co-operate with her, it encourages her to face the criminal as well as the society. Therefore, the said argument of the defendant is not acceptable."
13.1. To add to the above, we are of the view that even if some part of the delay in lodging in the FIR remains unexplained, the same is not fatal to the case, provided the available material against the accused satisfies the conscience of the Court. It seems that this test is also met in the instant case.
14. The prosecutrix had revealed the incident to her mother on 19.08.2013. Her parents wanted to meet appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal to verify facts by confronting him with the revelations of the prosecutrix. Having been told by the Sewak of appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal that he was then available at Delhi, the parents of the prosecutrix along with the prosecutrix left Shahjahanpur same day for Delhi. When they reached there, they were told that the Satsang had ended and appellant (Asha Ram @ Ashumal) had gone to Jodhpur. For registration of FIR at (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (29 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] jurisdictional police station at Jodhpur, they would have to travel further from Delhi to Jodhpur. That would entail delay in the the registration of FIR at jurisdictional police station, Jodhpur. Obviously, to obviate that delay, the zero FIR was lodged at Kamla Nagar Police Station, Delhi near to the Satsang place.
14.1. In our opinion, the learned Trial Court correctly rejected the contention that the FIR was lodged with undue delay at a non- jurisdictional police station in Delhi, pursuant to pre-concert and deliberate planning. We concur with this finding. The contention to the contrary is accordingly rejected.
15. Likewise, we are unable to accept the ground raised in appeal and as canvassed in course of the arguments that the trial was vitiated by the adverse media propaganda against appellant and; that learned Trial Judge failed in his duty to restrain such adverse media propaganda. If the appellant was aggrieved by any adverse media propaganda, it was open to him to take recourse to appropriate legal proceedings for preventing the same. If he did not take recourse to law for this purpose or failed in any such attempt, the blame cannot now be laid at the door of the learned Trial Court, who decided the case on its merits.
16. We also find no merit in the contention of the learned senior counsel for appellants that the learned Trial Judge erred in appreciating the evidence; the investigating agency and the prosecution consciously acted in a manner to poison the atmosphere against the appellant and make it impossible to examine the issues of fact and law dispassionately; learned Trial Judge failed to examine the flaws and dishonest manipulations during investigation; did not properly examine and evaluative the testimony of the prosecutrix, who was the star witness and also of the other witnesses and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on material facts are wrong.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (30 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
17. Impugned judgment, mainly in Hindi, typed on legal size paper up to the findings of conviction, runs into 444 pages. It is followed by pages 445 to 449 bearing the sentencing order. In our opinion, the learned Trial Court took pains and fully evaluated and analysed the evidence from every angle and recorded its conclusions consistent with record and relevant law. We are inclined to agree with the same, except of course the findings excluded by way of the caveat recorded above. With that exception and caveat, we reject the contention that the learned Trial Judge erred in appreciating the evidence.
18. On perusal and careful appraisal of the impugned judgment, we are of the opinion that it was rendered after dispassionate examination of the issues of fact and law by the learned Trial Court. We find no worthwhile material therein to support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the investigating agency and the prosecution consciously acted in a manner to poison the atmosphere against the appellant and make it impossible to examine the issues of fact and law dispassionately. The same is accordingly rejected.
19. It was after completion of investigation that the challan against the appellants was filed in the Court. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the opinion that Learned Trial Judge duly and properly examined and dealt with case from all angles including the investigation part; examined and evaluated the testimony of the prosecutrix and the other witnesses. After due application of mind, Learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment consistent with the record and applicable law, of course, with the exception/caveat already noted. We, therefore, reject the contention on behalf of the appellants that the Learned Trial Judge failed to examine the flaws and dishonest manipulations during investigation; did not properly examine and evaluate the testimony of the prosecutrix, who was the star witness and also of the other witnesses and (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (31 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on material issues of fact are wrong.
20. It was also submitted that during pendency of the instant appeals in this Court, Mr. Ajay Pal Lamba, the then DCP (West), Jodhpur had published a book titled "Gunning for the Godman, the True Story Behind Asha Ram's Conviction". In his own narration, Mr. Lamba stated in this book that he "immediately swung into action" before the transfer of the Delhi zero FIR to Jodhpur and directed the SHO of PS, Soorsagar to seal and secure the entire campus and sent a team to examine the location and that he had personally filmed the alleged scene of the crime on his mobile phone. The contention is that this narration in the book authored by Mr. Ajay Pal Lamba, the then DCP(West), Jodhpur assumes critical importance as it establishes that the investigative steps at the alleged scene of crime were initiated on 21.08.2013 even before the zero FIR was formally transferred to Jodhpur and before the regular FIR No. 122/13 was registered on 21.08.2013 at 06:15 PM and the same supports the appellant's consistent contention that the investigation was pre- determined and commenced prior to lawful registration of FIR in Jodhpur, thereby vitiating the entire investigative process and the videographed scene of crime was shown to the prosecutrix during her overnight stay in the police station.
20.1. Admittedly, an order dated 10.02.2022 was passed by this Court allowing the appellant's Application No. 1/2021 under Section 391 CrPC for summoning Mr. Ajay Pal Lamba as a witness for proving the facts stated in his book. However, that order was set aside vide an order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Asha Ram @ Ashumal2. Thus, the facts stated in his book have remained unproved. In our opinion, the appellant cannot fall back and 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 2044/2022 (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (32 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] rely upon the unproved contents of the book in question to question and find fault with the proved investigation of the case. 20.2. We, therefore, reject the appellant's contention that the investigation was pre-determined and commenced prior to lawful registration of FIR in Jodhpur, thereby vitiating the entire investigative process.
21. It was contended that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was any telephonic communication between appellant Sanchita @ Shilpi and the parents of the prosecutrix wherein the said appellant had asked them to come Chhindwara. We are unable to accept the contention. Prosecution has led sufficient and reliable evidence, including the sworn testimony of PW-12 Sunita Singh and her husband PW-21 Karamvir Singh to show that following missed mobile phone call from appellant Sanchita @ Shilpi, a return call was made to her. She had told about the health problem of their daughter and had asked the parents of the prosecutrix to come Chhindwara. It has also been established on record that thereafter, the parents of the prosecutrix had actually gone to Chhindwara and met appellant Sanchita @ Shilpi as also their daughter at the School. The mobile phone (No. 7804907062) from/to which the relevant calls were made, was actually recovered/seized by the police from the possession of appellant Shilpi. Quite often people do use the mobile phone numbers registered in others' names. It is, therefore, inconsequential if the said mobile phone was registered in the name of someone else than appellant Sanchita @ Shilpi.
22. Learned Senior Counsel for appellants argued that it was highly improbable that the prosecutrix and her family would have accepted and acted upon the story of the prosecutrix being haunted by ghosts and that the learned Trial Court erred by accepting this story. It was further contended that even otherwise, this part of the story was rendered (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (33 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] doubtful owing to the non-examination of Ms. Bhavya Shukla, who was admittedly present when appellant Shilpi had allegedly told the parents of the prosecutrix that she be taken to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal for ghost healing. For the reasons given below, we are not inclined to accept this contention.
22.1. Second limb of this contention is taken up first. It was pointed out that Bhavya d/o Shailesh Kumar had written letter dated 29.08.2013 to the District & Sessions Judge complaining that she had been threatened by Karamvir Singh, father of the prosecutrix and Jodhpur Police to depose against the appellant. Similar letters were issued by Shailesh Kumar to the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India seeking investigation and action against the officers. Further, Shailesh Kumar had filed affidavit Ex D-9 stating that the father of the prosecutrix and his aides had threatened to depose against the accused.
22.2. Qua the second limb of argument, the learned Trial Court, in such circumstances, ought to have, in exercise of its functions under Section 311 CrPC, summoned and examined Bhavya as Court witness. However, it failed to do so. Let us assume, as contended, that the testimony of Bhavya, if examined, would have gone in favour of the appellants and against the prosecution story. If the defence thought so, nothing prevented the appellants from calling her as a defence witnesses. Having not done that, they cannot be heard now to urge that the learned Trial Court, in exercise of its suo motu power under Section 311 CrPC, ought to have summoned Bhavya as Court witness, but failed to do so. 22.3. Things have to be seen from the perspective of the prosecutrix and her family. Indisputably, appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal was a religious guru, 'Bapu' as they all addressed him. Testimony of PW-21 Karamvir Singh shows that he got influenced by him and had taken Deeksha at Ahmedabad. He had served the appellant for 11-12 years by all means, (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (34 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] used to give him at least 10% of his income and sometimes even more. In a satsang at Haridwar, he (appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal) had told the audience that children who study in Gurukul would make progress and rise. They (Karamvir Singh and his wife Sunita Singh) had got their daughter and younger son admitted to Chhindwara Gurukul (which is named after name of appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal) for good education and sacraments (sanskaars). His daughter was to be admitted in 8th class. However, as the seats in that class were full, she was admitted to the 7th class. Indisputably, Karamvir Singh was doing his business and the family was residing at Shahjahanpur (UP). It is not shown if facilities for good education were not available at or near Shahjahanpur. Getting their two children admitted to Chhindwara Gurukul (MP) and their residence in the school hostel there meant that they would be studying and living away from the family. Not only that, it entailed huge extra expense and logistical difficulties for the family. Despite all this, the family got admitted the two children (prosecutrix and her younger brother) to Chhindwara Gurukul (MP).
22.4. PW-12 Sunita Singh, mother of the prosecutrix, deposed that she had taken Deeksha from Asha Ram in 2002 and knows him since then. Their whole family, (she, her husband and three children) had taken Deeksha from Asha Ram. Ashram of Asha Ram in Shahjahanpur was got built by her husband along with others. She had been listening Asha Ram's pravachan at Ahmedabad, Surat, Nasik, Ujjain, Allahabad, Delhi, Lucknow, Bareily and Rohtak. The prosecutrix deposed on 11.04.2014 that she too had taken Deekhsa from Asha Ram about 6-7 years before that date (meaning thereby in 2007-08).
22.5. Thus, sufficient evidence (unanimous depositions of the prosecutrix, mother and father both) was led by the prosecution to show that parents of the prosecutrix had taken Deeksha from the appellant in (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (35 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] 2002 and their daughter, the prosecutrix, took Deeksha in 2006 from appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal. Obviously, since taking Deeksha, they were his staunch devotees, had been deeply indoctrinated, had held appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal high in their esteem and had great faith in him and his advice.
22.6. Faith is a powerful force. Powerful enough to suspend even the sharpest of minds. Devotees of religious gurus will often embrace, without question, the most superstitious pronouncements and irrational counsel, including tales of ghosts and the supernatural. What is more striking is that even prudent, scientifically minded individuals are not immune: when they repose deep trust in another, reason quietly yields to belief. This surrender of rationality is all the more pronounced when a person stands at the edge of despair, trapped in crisis, overwhelmed by difficulty, and desperately searching for answers that logic has failed to provide. It is precisely in such moments of vulnerability that the irrational finds its most willing audience. Devotion thus has a peculiar power to suspend reason. Quite often, devotees of religious gurus would fall prey, without questioning those in whom they have faith. As seems to have happened in the case in hand.
22.7. 'Shri Asha Ramji Gurukul, Senior Secondary School Boys and Girls, Chhindwara' was named after appellant Asha Ram@ Ashumal and obviously was under his control. Shilpi @ Sanchita and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra accused were the Warden of the girls hostel and Director of the said Gurukul School respectively. For them, appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal was an important person interested in and concerned with the affairs of the School. They (Shilpi @ Sanchita and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra) were, therefore, likely to be in touch with him and apprising him from time to time about the affairs of the School, its hostel and the students. Further, they were unlikely to ignore or act (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (36 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] against what appellant Asha Ram@ Ashumal had asked in this case (to have the prosecutrix sent to him for ghost healing). Since her admission in 7th class, the prosecutrix was a student of 'Shri Asha Ramji Gurukul, Senior Secondary School Boys and Girls, Chhindwara (MP). At the relevant time (in August, 2013) she was in 12th class and was an inmate of the School hostel for Girls. Her parents were far away at Shahjahanpur (UP).
22.8. Prosecutrix had suffered a fall in the hostel bathroom on 06.08.2013 and had also complained of dizziness. In such premise, it is quite likely that appellants Shilpi @ Sanchita and/or Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra felt concerned about her health problem and they or either of them apprised appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal about it. On being told by latter to have the prosecutrix sent to him for her ghost healing, Shilpi @ Sanchita called the parents of the prosecutrix to Chhindwara. There they were told by appellant Shilpi @ Sanchita about the problem of their daughter and that she had also spoken about the same to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal and he had advised that the prosecutrix be brought to him for ghost healing. Later, when they met appellant Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra, he also told them that prosecutrix be taken to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal for ghost healing. Learned Trial Court noticed the unanimous testimony of the prosecutrix and both of her parents on these facts.
22.9. As already noted, appellant Shilpi @ Sanchita hostel warden had told the parents of the prosecutrix that she had spoken to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal about her problem and that he had advised that she be brought to him for ghost healing. They had also been told by appellant Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra to take their daughter to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal for ghost healing. Parents of the prosecutrix had no reason to disbelieve the statement of appellant Shilpi @ Sanchita, (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (37 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] hostel warden, who had told them that she had spoken about problem their daughter and that he had advised that she be brought to him for ghost healing. Moreover, they had also been told by appellant Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra to take their daughter to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal for ghost healing. Thereafter, the parents of the prosecutrix took her to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal at his Ashram in Manai. 22.10. In the given facts and circumstances, there seems nothing improbable if the prosecutrix and her family accepted and acted upon the story of the prosecutrix being haunted by ghosts and had gone to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal for ghost healing. We, therefore, reject the contention that the learned Trial Court erred by accepting this story.
23. We also find no merit in the contention that learned Trial Judge erred in determining the age of prosecutrix and had misinterpreted the provision about presumption contained in Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
23.1. For ready reference, Section 29 of the POCSO Act is reproduced as below:
"Section 29: Presumption as to certain offences - Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Section 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved."
The Section ibid shows that where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Section 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved. Indisputably, in present case, the appellant has been prosecuted, inter alia, for offences under Sections 5(f)/5(g) punishable under Section 6 and for an offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The presumption under the Section 29, ibid, was/is, inter alia, that the (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (38 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] appellant had committed the offences unless the contrary is proved. In other words, the presumption under Section 29 is rebuttable. 23.2. Perusal of impugned judgment shows that it is premised on the basis that the presumption under Section 29 of the Act, ibid, is rebuttable. This, to our mind, is in consonance with the language, object and spirit of the statute. We, therefore, reject the contention that Learned Trial Judge misinterpreted the provisions about presumption contained in Section 29 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
24. It was argued by learned senior counsel for the appellants that for determination of the age of the prosecutrix, Learned Trial Court wrongly relied upon Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana3 contending that in the said judgment, there was no conscious consideration that the the procedure for determination of age of the prosecutix, was the same as prescribed in Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for the child in conflict with law. We are unable to agree to the said contention.
24.1. Perusal of the judgment in Jarnail Singh (supra) shows that having observed that even though Rule 12, ibid, is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, the Lordships of the Apex Court were of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining the age even for a child who is a victim of crime as there is hardly any difference so far as the issue of minority is concerned between a child who is in conflict with law and a child who is a victim of crime. It is obvious that it was after conscious consideration and application of mind that the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken the view that the procedure prescribed in Rule 12, ibid, of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, should also be the basis for determining the age 3 (2013) 7 SCC 263.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (39 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] even for a child who is a victim of crime. We, therefore, reject the contention that in the said judgment, there was no conscious consideration about the procedure for determination of the age for a child who is a victim of crime.
25. Learned counsel for appellants also submitted that the POCSO Act, 2015 had come into effect from 01.01.2016 during pendency of the trial before the learned Judge, Special Court. Section 94 of the Act, ibid, prescribes the procedure. It was contended that in the face of that provision under the Act, earlier judgment in Jarnail Singh (supra) for adoption of the procedure under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for determination of age of the prosecutrix was not applicable to the case in hand. We are unable to accept this contention.
25.1. For ready reference, Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 are reproduced below:
Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 "12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.--
(1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in Rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. (2) The Court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the observation home or in jail. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining-
(a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school(other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of Clause (a) above, the medical opinion will besought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case maybe, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (40 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the Clauses
(a) (i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, Clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the Court or the Boardor as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned.
(5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of Section 7A, Section 64of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the Court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub-rule (3) of this rule. (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law." Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 "94. Presumption and determination of age-
(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under Section 14 or Section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age. (2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining-
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order. (3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person."
25.2. As would be seen, both of these provisions prescribe the same process for determination of the age of the prosecutrix and the only difference between both provisions under Section 94(2) of JJ Act, 2015 and Rule 12 (3) the 2007 Rules, is that under Act, ibid, the School birth certificate and the matriculation or equivalent certificates are on equal footing, but under Rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules, the Matriculation certificate has priority. Further the rule, ibid, provides the birth certificate from school should be from the school other than a play school and that (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (41 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] the Matriculation certificate has priority over birth certificate from school. In our opinion, the evidentiary value of the Matriculation certificate showing date of birth is not diminished, merely because under Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015, date of birth certificate from the school has also been added thereto. To our mind, in case of their variance, the Court has to look into and evaluate the relevant material available on record and decide the question of date of birth appropriately. 25.3. In present case, learned Trial Court referred to the photostat copy Ex D/8-A of the entry in the Scholars' Register of Shri Shankar Mumukshu Vidyapeeth, Shahjahanpur produced by the defence showing the victim/s date of birth as 06-08-1995. This document (Ex D/8-A) purports to be copy of the same entry Ex P/150 which had earlier been produced by the prosecution. Their comparison, in our opinion, is quite revealing rather disturbing. Ex P/150 only shows that the victim was admitted on 06.04.1999 to Nursery class of the Vidyapeeth and promoted on 10.04.2000, with words 'passed'. Of course, in the line below, against the printed letters 'KG' (short for Kindergarten) date '10-04-2000' was also mentioned and nothing more. As against this, Ex D/8-A, produced by the defence and purporting to be the Photostat copy of the same entry Ex P/150), further mentions about the victim's admission to KG on 10.04.2000, promotion on 10.05.2001; admission to class I on 10.5.2001 and promotion on 26.03.2002. Obviously, some times after the issue of Photostat copy Ex P/150 of the entry, the aforesaid additions/ changes were made in the Scholars' Register of Shri Shankar Mumukshu Vidyapeeth, for extraneous reasons.
25.4. Learned Trial Court found that DW-5 Jaya Kamat Principal of the Vidyapeeth was unable to explain the various flaws and discrepancies about the students' dates of birth etc. pointed out in School Scholars' Register. It then opined that entry Ex D/8A pertaining to the prosecutrix (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (42 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] did not inspire confidence and that merely on its basis, disbelieving the Marticulation certificate (showing the victim's date of birth as 04.07.1997) was not appropriate. Learned Trial Court also observed that the relevant record of victim's admission to class II of Saraswati Shishu Mandir, transfer certificate of Shri Pratap Singh Memorial Secondary School, Kharkhoda (Haryana), transfer certificate of Sant Shri Asaram Gurukul, Chhindwara consistently showed her date of birth as 04.07.1997. It opined that from class 2 of Saraswati Shishu Mandir to class 12 of Sant Shri Asaram Gurukul, the victim's date of birth was recorded as 04.07.1997. Learned Trial Court also observed that Photostat of entry Ex P-150 in the Scholars' Register of Shri Shankar Mumukshu Vidyapeeth, Shahjahanpur only shows that the prosecutrix had been admitted only to the Nursery class and that in Rule 12(3)(A)(II) of the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, certificate of play school has not been given any recognition.
25.5. Thus, even by retrospective application of Section 94 (2) of JJ Act, 2015 and the process prescribed therein for determination of the age of the prosecutrix, the result is the same (victim's date of birth being 04.07.1997) as it would have been under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.
25.6. The ratio of judgment in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned Trial Court would, therefore, be applicable in the instant case also.
25.7. In Jarnail Singh (supra), it was also held that if, in the scheme of options under Rule 12 (3) an option is expressed in the preceding clause, it has over-riding effect on the option expressed in the subsequent clause. The highest rated option would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (43 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] the concerned child is the highest rated option. In case the said certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. 25.8. The view taken in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) for determination of the age of the prosecutrix was also taken in Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra & anr.4, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh5 and Vishal Gund @ Aman v. State of Rajasthan6 which have also been relied upon by the learned Trial Court.
25.9. Such being position, we are of the opinion that the process/procedure for determination of age of a child victim laid down in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) with reference to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 would also apply for determination of the age of the prosecutrix even after POCSO Act, 2015 had come into effect from 01.01.2016, except for treating the birth certificate from school on the footing of matriculation certificate. By giving reasons cogent enough, it has been held that even by retrospective application of the Act, the result about the age/date of birth of the prosecutrix would be the same i.e. it being 04.07.1997 25.10. We, therefore, reject the contention that in the face of that provision under the Act, earlier judgment in Jarnail Singh (supra) for adoption of the process/procedure under Rule 12 ofthe Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for determination of age of the prosecutrix, was not applicable to the case in hand. 25.10. Para 125 of impugned judgment shows that in Asha Ram @ Ashumal vs. State of Rajasthan 7 , an order dated 15.10.2014 was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowing the appellant's prayer for summoning of documents in which date of birth of victim was given 4 (2013) 14 SCC 637.
5(2015) 7 SCC 773.
6(2013) SCC OnLine Raj 3930.
7SLP (Crl.) No. 3517/2014.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (44 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] differently from what is alleged by the prosecution. Pursuant thereto, those documents were produced in defence. The same were duly taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court.
25.11. Learned Trial Court also referred to relevant documents on record, from class 2 of Sarswati Shishu Mandir to class 12 of Sant Shri Asa Ram Gurukul, including the High School examination certificate of Secondary Education Board, Madhya Pradesh produced by the prosecution and found that in all of them, the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 04.07.1997, thus showing that on 15.08.2013, she was a child (below 18 years of age).
25.12. As noticed above, Learned Trial Court also referred to various documents produced in defence to show that on the relevant date (15.08.2013), the prosecutrix was not less than 18 years. 25.13. Turning now to the criticism against relevant documents produced by the prosecution to prove the age of the prosecutrix, the learned Trial Court also observed that in the instant case, the accused persons want to convince the Court that the father of the prosecutrix, intentionally, years ago wrote the age of his daughter less so that in future, if rape would be committed with her, then he can have the accused punished by treating her as a child under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. We are of the considered opinion that it would be absurd, preposterous and the height of perversity to attribute any such motive to the father of the prosecutrix. Any such suggestion/attempt has, therefore, to be rejected out of hand. 25.14. Para 107 of impugned judgment shows that Criminal Revision No. 514/2014 had been filed by the appellant against an order dated 08.05.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing his application under Section 34 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Appellant's revision petition (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (45 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Relevant part thereof is as under:
"A collective reading of Section 7A of the JJ Act 2000, Section 34 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007 in the light of the law laid down in Jarnail Singh's case (supra) of the Apex Court, it can be said that when the matriculation or equivalent certificate of the prosecutrix has been filed by the prosecution which has not been denied by the prosecutrix then no more enquiry is needed under Section 7A of the JJ Act, 2000 and it is only during the course of the statement of the prosecutrix, by her cross examination, the defence can challenge the age mentioned in her matriculation certificate to be false."
The aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, is nonetheless the finding of this Court. The said order having not been challenged has attained finality.
26. It was also argued rather strenuously that genuineness of the Matriculation certificate (of the prosecutrix) had not been proved and yet the learned Trial Court wrongly relied upon the same. Again, this contention is liable to be rejected.
26.1. Para 54 of the impugned judgment referring to the testimony of PW-35 Nitin Dubey, the then SHO, shows, inter alia, that on 25.08.2013, he had gone to the house of victim at Shahjahanpur; when he asked for her original Matriculation certificate, the prosecutrix told that she would herself need the original for further studies, etc. and when required, she will provide the said original certificate. She gave its copy, which was compared with the original. The said copy is Ex P-107 and the original document (Matriculation certificate) is Ex P-107/A. Learned Trial Court rejected the appellants' objection against production of these documents by observing/holding as under:
"Both the above documents were displayed in the testimony of PW-35 Nitin Dave on 4-6-2015 and 14-5-2015, respectively, on which the objection was raised that the said documents are not related to the witness, hence the said The documents can not be displayed in evidence by the said witness.
In the humble opinion, the said documents have been issued by Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education Bhopal, which fall under the category of public documents. Therefore, the said documents issued by the said State Institution can be displayed in the evidence. Apart from this, both of the above documents had been displayed as evidence on 14-7-2015 by PW-33, Vivek Sharma . Therefore, the said baseless objection of the defense party is rejected."
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (46 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] 26.2. To be noted here that under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, the Court shall take judicial notice, inter alia, of all seals which any person is authorised to use by the Constitution or an Act or Regulation having the force of law in India. Section 56 of the Act, ibid, provides that no fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need to be proved. Section 94 of the POCSO Act, 2015 does not prescribe any new or additional procedure/conditions for admitting into evidence the Matriculation certificate issued by the concerned examination Board. 26.3. In this case, the Matriculation certificate of the prosecutrix Ex P- 107/P-107A bears the seal of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal which is judicially noticeable. This being the position, we are unable to accept the contention that the Matriculation Certificate Exh- P-107-A (original) of the prosecutrix and its copy Ex P-107 were wrongly admitted into evidence and taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court.
26.4. Learned Trial Court also referred to various documents produced in defence to show that on the relevant date (15.08.2013), the prosecutrix was not less than 18 years. It then took pains to deal with them one by one, duly noted their respective infirmities and weak evidentiary value, recorded reasons and justification on the basis of which the same were not given credence over the documents produced by the prosecution. After elaborate discussion and evaluation of evidence led and contentions from both sides (from para 107 to 186) in the light of relevant law, the learned Trial Court recorded a firm finding in para 187 of the impugned judgment that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 04.07.1997. In other words, she was below 18 years of age at the time of commission of the offences.
26.5. We are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court followed the correct course of action for determination of the age of the prosecutrix (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (47 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] and rightly believed and accepted the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution showing her date of birth as 04.07.1997. We are inclined to agree to the same, uphold the said finding recorded in the impugned judgment and reject the contention that learned Trial Judge erred in determining the age of prosecutrix.
27. Having upheld the finding that date of birth prosecutrix was 04.07.1997, we reject the contention that the provisions of the POCSO Act and the JJ Act are not applicable to the case.
28. Learned Senior Counsel for appellants contended that the record negatives the story that the prosecutrix had gone to Haridwar in May, 2013 in a mixed group of 15-20 students (boys and girls) from the school and there she had met appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal, which according to him, was the genesis of this case. In this connection, he pointed out to the relevant parts of the statement of prosecutrix in her statements (original in Hindi - transliterated in English) under Section 161 CrPC and during her cross-examination in Court:
"Statement under Section 161 CrPC :
"Is se pehle jab maen May-June, 13 mein unke Haridwar Ashram gai thi, tab unhon ne kamre me bulakar chhone kee koshish kee, gaal par haath phera par maen ne socha Guru haen, Sant haen, bacha maan kar pyar kar rahe haen. "
x-x-x-x-x Cross-examination in Court:
"is prakar us samay Haridwar me Bapoo se teen baar mile the. In teenon bar jab mile, tab samoohi kroop se mile the. Yeh kehna galt hae ki Haridwar meen ekant mein Bapoo se akele milna hua ho. Maen Haridwar mein Bapoo se ekant mein kamre mein nahi milee thee."
28.1. We are unable to accept this contention also. The prosecutrix swore in the Court that she had gone to Haridwar in 2013 in a mixed group of 15-20 students (boys and girls) from the school and met appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal there thrice, collectively each time. This testimony could not be shaken in cross-examination. Mere want of further evidence for its corroboration and/or absence its reference in application for leave Ex P- 85, document of information about victim's outside tour Ex P-113, handwritten complaint dated 19.08.2013, zero FIR registered at Delhi, (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (48 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] NGO report dated 20.08.2013 Ex D-4, victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC Ex P-7 and FIR dated 20.08.2013 registered at Jodhpur would not, in our opinion, falsify the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix. 28.2. Further, in our view, unless something untoward/unpleasant had happened on that visit to Haridwar when the prosecutrix met appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal there in May, 2013, the same would have no material bearing with commission of the offences by the appellants in August, 2013, for which the appellants were tried,. It is, therefore, inconsequential even if, on this point, there had been some discrepancy inter se the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 CrPC and her deposition during cross-examination in Court, as reproduced above. In any case, any such discrepancy would not falsify or give rise to any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case at the trial.
29. Crux of the prosecution case has two parts-
(a) appellants' Shilpi @ Sanchita and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra had suggested to the parents of the prosecutrix to take her to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal for ghost healing;
and
(b) the offences committed on 15.08.2013 by appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal in his kutiya at Manai Ashram.
29.1. Let us delve into these now.
30. PW-12 Sunita Singh, mother of the prosecutrix, deposed that on 06.08.2013, there was a missed call from appellant Shilpi on the phone of her son Somveer. On being called back, she had said that all members of the family should start chanting Maha Mrityunjay Mantra. On 07.08.2013, she (appellant Shilpi) called again and told her that the health of the prosecutrix was very bad and they should come to Chhindwara soon. This conversation took place with her and her husband. She had also talked to her daughter (proscutrix), which was arranged by (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (49 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] appellant Shilpi. Her daughter also had told "health is very bad, the best doctor was to be visited, you come soon". On 08.08.2013, she and her husband (PW-21 Karamaveer Singh) reached Chhindwara at about 08:30/09:00 PM, stayed in the boys' hostel. Later, they talked to their daughter (prosecutrix) who told that her health was bad at that time. Next day (09.08.2013), she had met appellant Shilpi in the girls' hostel. She then told in the presence of the prosecutrix that the latter was under
the influence of evil spirits; she had a talk with Asha Ram (appellant Asha Ram) and he had advised that the prosecutrix be brought to him. PW-21 Karamveer Singh also deposed that on 09.08.2013, they had met Shilpi.
He corroborated the testimony of his wife (PW-12 Sunita Singh) about the conversation with appellant Shilpi. He also deposed that thereafter, they had met appellant Sharad Chandra at the Gurkul. He too told that Asha Ram (appellant Asha Ram) had desired that the prosecutrix be brought to him for ghost healing. PW-5 'SU' (prosecutrix) deposed in the same vein.
31. On what happened after the entry of the prosecutrix into the kutiya till her exit, the relevant part of her deposition in Court verbatim (translated from Hindi) is as under:
"12.04.2014............I was sitting near the staircase, then by beckoning from back side door Asha Ram called me. First of all I went to washroom which was near to the said room. Thereafter I went inside the room, then Asha Ram asked me to go and see what my mother and father were doing. Thereafter, I went there to see them, then I saw that father had gone and mother was sitting there. Mother was sitting at the gate of the garden. Then I came back and told Asha Ram that mother was sitting and father had gone. At that time Asha Ram had already switched off the light of the room, and he was resting on the bed. Then he asked me to sit on the bed in his side, then he started touching my hand and he was talking to me. He told me 'what will you do after studying, I will make you orator. You may dedicate yourself to me, and you will stay with us, I will make your life.' He was talking, then he stood up and closed the door. Thereafter, he started acting foul with me. First of all he took out his clothes, then I cried and asked, 'Asha Ram what are you doing.' Note: At this stage the witness started weeping. Therefore the statement of the witness was stopped and drinking water was given to her, thereafter she was asked whether or not she was in the position to give her statement, then the witness told that she would give her statement.
Then he pressed my mouth. Then he threatened me and told me 'if you will raise your voice then you will see what will do with you. I will get your mother and father murdered. Your whole family will disappear, and you will know nothing. Then he started molesting me, he was touching my whole body with his hand.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (50 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] He was touching my private part. And he was kissing me and he hugged me. He put his hands in my clothes and started molesting me. Then he started pressurizing me to touch his private part and suck it. He had kissed at my private part, on my mouth and at all the places of my body. I was weeping, and requesting him to let me go. and was telling him 'we consider you as our god, what are you doing?' Then he continued to molest me, and he let me go after about one or one and quarter hour. At the time of leaving, he told me 'don't tell anyone otherwise you will see.' He told me 'set your hair and clothes in order; then you may go and don't tell anything to anyone.' Then I came out from the back door from where I had gone inside. Outside the room, there was Baramda in front of the gate where Parkash was sitting. Note: At this stage, on behalf of the prosecution adjournment has been sought for remaining statement. The same was opposed on behalf of accused persons, and submitted that it was only 4.00 O'Clock therefore the examination-in-chief should be continued, but the Special Public prosecutor submits that the witness is not in the position to continue her examination-in-chief, therefore the time may be allowed. Therefore the examination-in-chief of the witness has been deferred. Dated: 15.04.2014 In continuation of 12.04.2014 the examination-in-chief of witness is continued...... Question: Whatever happened with you inside the Kutiya, how did all those things affect you?
Note: The Ld. Counsel objected vehemently on behalf of accused persons and submitted that this question is irrelevant and there is no meaning of this question, because the complete incident of inside the room has already been narrated by the witness, and thereafter, asking this question is not relevant in accordance to law, while it has been submitted on behalf of prosecution that this question is relevant in accordance to law.; and this is not a leading question, therefore the permission may be given. Both the parties have been heard, the permission of asking question is granted.
Answer: I was shocked with this incident that a person, whom I treated as God, had committed such an obnoxious act. He made an attempt to undress me, removed my salvaar. I was not able to think.
When I came out from the room, then my mother was sitting in the garden at the gate. Thereafter, I came to the room with my mother............".
32. At 10:30 in the night, the kutiya/room held only two souls. The appellant/Asha Ram and the minor victim. The door was shut. The bolt was drawn. The lights were extinguished. Within those four walls, in that darkness, only they knew what transpired. No third eye witnessed it; no third voice could speak to it. In such circumstances, to demand corroborative ocular evidence before believing the victim would be to demand the impossible. That would be punishing her for the very isolation her abuser engineered.
32.1. And then there is the question that answers itself: why would a Asha Ram summon a young girl alone to his room almost in the dead of night? The question is not rhetorical. It is damning. Innocence does not seek darkness and bolted doors. The intent writes itself across these facts (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (51 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] in letters too large to ignore. The facts need no embellishment. They speak. Loudly, clearly, and with the force of truth. 32.2. Since none else other than appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal and the prosecutrix was in the kutiya, which had been shut and bolted from inside and the lights had been switched off, except the two of them, no one could/would know or have known what happened inside the kutiya. The version deposed to by the prosecutrix could not, therefore, be discarded or doubted for want of ocular corroborative evidence. The lengthy cross- examination of PW-5 (prosecutrix), her mother PW-12 and father PW-21 was conducted on numerous dates. None-the less, their testimony on material particulars could not be shaken. The victim's account, therefore, stands unimpeached and cannot be discarded merely for want of independent witnesses to a crime committed in deliberate secrecy.
33. PW-21 Karamvir Singh, his wife PW-12 Sunita Singh and the prosecutrix were unanimous in saying that on message from the appellant, on the date of occurrence in the evening they had gone to the Ashram and met the appellant. After satsang, when other devotees were leaving, the appellant had asked them to stay on and follow him towards kutiya. On way to kutiya, they were made to sit on the concrete path and do jaap. Later, the prosecutrix was asked to do the jaap behind the kutiya while her parents were told to continue jaap at the same place i.e. sitting on the concrete path. Again this evidence remained unimpeached. In our opinion, the same was rightly relied upon by the learned Trial Court.
34. It was pointed out that since the family of the prosecutrix and she herself had met the appellant (Asha Ram @ Ashumal) on 14.08.2013 at Manai Ashram, in the normal course, they would have gone back the same day. They had no reason to stay on for the night at Manai and meet the appellant next day. On that basis, it was contended that story about (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (52 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] the incident of 15.08.2013 was doubtful. We are unable to accept this contention.
35. Karamveer Singh father, Sunita Singh mother along with their daughter (prosecutrix) had travelled all the way from Shahjahanpur (UP) to Manai Ashram in Jodhpur district via Delhi (distance stated to be about 1600 km) for ghost healing of the prosecutrix by the appellant. No doubt, they had reached Manai Ashram (Jodhpur district) and met the appellant on 14.08.2013. By travelling the long distance of about 1600 km and having reached Manai on 14.08.2013, naturally they (Karamveer Singh, Sunita Singh and their daughter) would have been considerably tired and in need of rest.
35.1. That apart, given the purpose of their going to Manai and meeting the appellant (solving the problem of ghost haunting of the prosecutrix) and the attending circumstances, there seems nothing unusual or improbable if they stayed on for the night of 14.08.2013 at Manai, to take the much needed rest, avail of opportunity for attending the appellant's satsang next day (on 15.08.2013) too and also seek any further advice from him for solving the problem of ghost haunting of the prosecutrix. During cross-examination of PW-6 Ranjit Singh resident of Manai, it was suggested that during Satsang on 14.08.2015, the appellant (Asha Ram @ Ashumal) had asked him to make arrangements for the stay of the prosecutrix and her parents. He admitted the suggestion and also stated that arrangements asked for their stay were actually made. This suggestion on behalf of the appellants and the answer thereto given by the witness is a clincher. It shows that the prosecutrix and her parents had actually stayed at Manai for the night of 14.08.2013. The prosecutrix and her parents were not cross-examined to question or dispute the reason of their staying at Manai for the night of 14.08.2013. We are of the opinion that in the given facts and circumstances, their stay at Manai (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (53 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] for the night of 14.08.2013 was not unjustified and that there is no ground to assume that they had done so only to falsely implicate appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal for commission of the offences.
36. Learned counsel for appellants pointed out that at the time of her medical examination the prosecutrix on 20.08.2013, her hymen was found intact and there was no visible mark of injury on her body. On that ground, it was contended version of the prosecutrix qua the happenings inside the kutia was suspicious. We are unable to accept the contention.
37. Learned Trial Court noted that Medical examination on the body of the prosecutrix (on 20.08.2013) revealed that her hymen was intact and no external injury was present. Having noted these facts, the learned Trial Court further observed that victim had not given any statement that anything was put in her private parts and that she had only said that her private part was kissed by the appellant (Asha Ram @ Ashumal) and he tried to get his private part sucked by her.
38. Admittedly, there were/are no allegations of inflicting/causing of any bodily injury by the appellant to the prosecutrix or that there was any forcible penetration of the penis into her vagina. In such circumstances, the deposition of the prosecutrix about commission of the offences on 15.08.2013 by the appellant cannot be discarded merely because at the time of her medical examination on 20.08.2013, her hymen was found intact and there was no visible mark of injury on her body. The contention to that effect is, therefore, rejected.
39. It was contended that no scientific or FSL test was conducted by the prosecution, no FSL and technical team summoned to inspect for DNA analysis of the scene of crime. The prosecution story was, therefore, not free from suspicion. This contention is equally untenable. The offences had been committed on 15.08.2013. Following receipt of zero FIR from PS Kamla Nagar, Delhi, regular FIR No.122/13 of the case was registered (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (54 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] at Police Station (West) Jodhpur on 21.08.2013. Police investigation of the case commenced thereafter. Considering the manner of commission offences and the time gap of 6 days upto commencement of investigation (which stood explained, as already held above), and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, after a time gap of 6 days of commission offences and following commencement (on 21.08.2013) of investigation, any subsequent scientific or FSL test and/or DNA analysis of the scene of crime, was unlikely to serve any useful purpose. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that want of any such test/analysis did not make any dent in the prosecution case. Accordingly, we repel the contention that for want of any scientific or FSL test, the prosecution story was not free from suspicion.
40. Learned senior counsel for appellants pointed out several inconsistencies /discrepancies as below:
(a) inter se versions of the prosecutrix at various stages- report of the incident lodged with the police, zero FIR lodged at Delhi, NGO report, her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the FIR lodged at Jodhpur vis-à-vis the deposition of the prosecutrix in Court;
(b) discrepancies inter se the statements of PWs Sunita Singh and Karamvir Singh, their own statements to the police under Section 161 CrPC and the deposition in Court. Furthermore, several discrepancies inter se the depositions of prosecutrix, PWs Sunita Singh and Karamvir Singh in the Court were also pointed out.
Basis above, it was contended that the prosecution story was rendered highly doubtful. We are unable to accept the contentions.
41. To test the above argument, let us dive a little deeper by seeing the relevant testimony. Following are the inconsistencies and discrepancies pointed out by Learned senior counsel for appellants:
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (55 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] A. PW5/'Su'-prosecutrix:
Handwritten Statement under Statement under Deposition of the Complaint dated Section 164 Section 161 Prosecutrix 19.08.2013 CrPC dated CrPC dated (PW-5) dated (@Pg. 1, CC-A) 20.08.2013 21.08.2013 11.04.2014 (@Pg.32-33, CC- (@Pg.40-41, (@Pg.59, CC-A) A) CC-A) On the night of 8-8- Then on 8th August On 8/8/13, my Then on 8th August, 13, between 10 to 11, 2013, my parents parents came to my father and my mother-father reached there at Chhindwara Ashram mother had come to reached Gurukul, I night. They were but were not allowed Chhindwara and had spoken to them accommodated in to meet me. I only stayed in the boys' on phone. On the the school, and I was spoke to my father hostel. That day they morning of 9-8-13, in the girls' hostel. In through Vidya's did not meet me.
my mother-father the evening, Shilpi mobile. On the They met me the came to take me made me talk to my morning of 9/8/13, next day, i.e., on the from the Girls parents over the between 9 and 9:30, morning of 9th Hostel. Then they phone. Then the next I met my parents, August. My parents spoke to "Shilpi". day, my parents and then Shilpi told had reached Shilpi said that there came to the girls' them that I was Chhindwara on the is a shadow of hostel to take me. under the shadow of night of 8th August. ghosts-spirits over Then Shilpi didi told a ghost and that When my parents Supriya, regarding my parents that I was Asha Ram had came to meet me, which we have under the shadow of called us. She said they met Shilpi didi informed Asha Ram spirits, and this was we have to go in her office on the and he has called conveyed to Asha wherever Asha Ram same day, i.e., the Supriya. Shilpi said Ram Asha Ramji, is. She tried to find 9th. I was also there wherever Asha Ram and he had called out about Asha Ram, with them at that is, take her to him me. but could not get any time. Then Shilpi quickly. information. Then didi told my parents my father asked the that I was under the director, who said shadow of spirits that Asha Ram and that she had would be in Delhi on spoken to Asha Ram, the 12th-13th. That and that they should day, around 11- take me to him 11:30, we left immediately, as he Chhindwara Ashram had called, and that for our home in there was no need to Azizganj. go anywhere else.
Then my mother, father, and I went to my school. Then my father met Sharad sir. He told my father that I was under the shadow of spirits, and that they had spoken to Asha Ram, that he had called, and that I should not be taken anywhere else. Then my father asked Sharad sir where Asha Ram was, and he said to talk to Shiva, he will tell where Asha Ram (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (56 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] is, because he knows about Asha Ram's satsang. Then we left Chhindwara on 9th August.
Date: 09.08.2013 On 9-8-13, I reached Then on 8 August On the morning of On the morning of my home 2013, my parents 9/8/13, between 9 9/8/13, between 9 Shahjahanpur. Then reached there at and 9:30, I met my and 9:30, I met my father found out night. They were parents. Then Shilpi parents. Then Shilpi where Asha Ram is, accommodated in told them that there told them that there and that he will come the school and I was is a shadow of a is a shadow of a to Delhi on 12-8-13 in the girls' hostel. In ghost on me and ghost on me and the evening, Shilpi Asha Ram has called Asha Ram has called made me talk to my us. You have to go us. You have to go to parents on the phone. where Asha Ram is. where Asha Ram is. Then the next day, She tried to find out She tried to find out my parents came to about Asha Ram, but about Asha Ram, but the girls' hostel to could not find out. could not find out. take me. Then Shilpi Then father asked Then father asked didi told my parents the director and the director and that there is a found out that Asha found out that Asha shadow of spirits on Ram will be in Delhi Ram will be in Delhi me and this was told on 12-13. That day, on 12-13. That day, to Asha Ram Asha around 11-11:30, we around 11-11:30, we Ramji and he had left the ashram in left the ashram in called me. Chhindwara for our Chhindwara for our home in Azizganj. home in Azizganj.
10.08.2013 On 9-8-13, I reached Then my parents Then my parents We reached home my home took me home. My took me home next morning.
Shahjahanpur. Then parents talked on the
father found out phone to a servant of
where Asha Ram is, Asaram Asha Ram
and found out that he named Shiva, and he
will come to Delhi told that Asaram
on 12-8-13. Asha Ram is going
to come to Delhi on
12 August 2013.
11.08.2013 to 13.08.2013
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (57 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
Then father found Then we came to My parents talked The next day, father
out where Asha Ram Delhi. Asha Ramji on the phone to a asked Shiva on the
is, and found out was not in Delhi. servant of Asaram phone about Asha
that he will come to Then my father Asha Ram named Ram. Shiva is a
Delhi on 12-8-13. talked to Shiva, who Shiva, and he told servant of Asha
When we reached called us to Jodhpur. that Asaram Asha Ramji, who stays
Delhi on 13-8-13, Ram is going to with Asha Ramji.
we found out that he come to Delhi on 12 He knows where
is in Jodhpur August 2013. Asha Ram is. My
(Rajasthan). Then father has talked to
Shiva, who stays in him before as well. I
the service of Asha also know him. Last
Ram, told us, 'You year, in May-June,
come to Jodhpur we girls went from
quickly. Gurukul to meet
Asha Ram at
Haridwar Ashram,
and I had talked to
him then as well.
Shiva told us that
Asha Ram will be in
Delhi on 12-13.
14.08.2013
On 14-8-13, we A little ahead of a ...On the morning of And on the morning
reached near Manai village named Manai 14, we reached of 14 August, we
village ahead of in Jodhpur, there is Jodhpur. Got ready reached Jodhpur.
Jodhpur, where Asha Asha Ramji's in the railway station Mommy, Daddy, and
Ram had come. cottage where he waiting room. I were all together.
When I reached was staying. Father talked to On 14 August, we
there, the gate was Shiva, then he told reached Jodhpur
closed and all the that here in Manai is around 10:30-11 in
sadhaks were Asha Ramji's the morning. Then
standing outside. cottage, and he father talked to
Then father talked to himself noted down Shiva on the phone
Shiva on the phone, the address of Asha and asked where
and he opened the Ramji's cottages. Asha Ram is, and
gate. We talked to an auto Shiva explained the
driver, but he didn't full address of Asha
know any address, Ram to father. Then
then we made an we reached Manai
auto driver talk to Ashram by auto, as
Shiva, and Shiva told by Shiva. We
explained the reached Manai
address to him. We Ashram around 2-
came to Manai from 2:30 in the
him. Manai was afternoon. The outer
about 30-35 KM gate of Manai
from Jodhpur, it Ashram was closed
took 1-1:30 hours to and about ten to
reach. We reached fifteen people were
the given address, waiting at the gate.
which was like a big Then father called
farmhouse with a Shiva and told him
lock on the gate. We that we have reached
were not allowed here, but the gate is
inside, then we made closed. Then Shiva
the gatekeeper talk said that he will get
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (58 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
to Shiva on the the gate opened.
phone, then we were After a little while,
allowed to come the gate was opened,
inside. and we went inside.
B. The discrepancies pointed out in versions of PW 12 Sunita Singh and PW 21 Karamveer Singh in their police statement under Section 161 CrPC and the depositions in Court are on following points:-
Statement of Evidence of PW- Statement of Evidence of PW-
PW-12 (Mother) 12 (@Pg.165- PW-21 (Father) 21 (@Pg.256-258, under Section 168, CC-A) u/S.161, CrPC CC-A) 161 CrPC dated (@Pg.244-245, 21.08.2013 CC-A) (Pg.152-153, CC- A) Date: 09.08.2013 The next day in the Then, on 8th August, On 8/8/13, my wife Then, on the next day, morning, we left for at around 4:30 AM, and I departed by car 8th August 2013, my Gurukul Chhindwara the two of us from Shahjahanpur wife and I departed and reached around departed for and reached by car from 8:00 in the evening. Chhindwara, and we Chhindwara Ashram Shahjahanpur to We did not meet reached Chhindwara at around 9:00 AM. Chhindwara. We Supriya; spoke to her at around 8:30-9:00 We stayed at the reached Chhindwara on the phone, and she PM. In Chhindwara, Gurukul, and from at around 9:00 PM said that she had felt we went directly to there spoke to that day. At the dizzy, but now she the boys' hostel. We Supriya over the Gurukul gate in was fine. We stayed stayed at the boys' phone. She said that Chhindwara, we at the Gurukul; hostel that night. On nothing had inquired about our Supriya was in the the same day, my happened, just that daughter, and they hostel, which was 6- husband and I spoke she had felt a little said they would 7 km away from to our daughter, dizzy, but she was arrange a there. In the which happened at now fine. At night, conversation. Around morning, we met around 10:30 PM. we did not meet 10:00 PM, they Supriya, it was Then, from there, Supriya. We stayed allowed us to speak to probably on 8/8/13. when I inquired at the Gurukul, while our daughter on the Shilpi told us that about my daughter's Supriya's hostel was phone. On the phone, Supriya was under health at the boys' 6-7 km away. our daughter said that the shadow of spirits. hostel, they arranged On 9/8/13, my wife she had felt dizzy and This matter is known for us to speak to our and I went to meet had fallen, but now to Asha Ram, and we daughter. When we Supriya. We met her she was fine. We then have to take Supriya asked our daughter at around 8:30-9:00 told her that we to meet Asha Ram. over the phone about AM. Shilpi informed would come in the My husband, her health, she said us that "there is a morning, as we Karmveerji, inquired she was fine. We then shadow of spirits in would not be allowed about Asha Ram, and said that we would the hostel, and the to meet her that night. Supriya's school not let her come same shadow has We stayed at the director told him that immediately and that also come on boys' hostel there. he might go to Delhi we would come in Supriya. That is why The next morning, we on the 12th-13th. the morning. Supriya became went to the girls' That day, we took The next morning, I dizzy and fell in the hostel. There, we met Shilpa (Supriya) went to the girls' bathroom. Asha Ram Shilpi, and we asked along and returned to hostel, which was on has been informed her about our (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (59 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] Shahjahanpur. We 9th August. There, I about her condition. daughter. Shilpi said left our son so that first met Shilpi, He has told her a that our daughter had his studies would not inside the girls' mantra to chant and felt dizzy and fallen, be affected. hostel. I asked her has called her but she was now fine, about our daughter's immediately." and she would call health, and she said After that, I met the her. Then our that she was fine and hostel director, daughter came there. that she would also Sharad, who told me Shilpi said that there arrange for us to that "Asha Ram has is a shadow of spirits speak to her, and that called you to meet in the hostel, and the we should sit. Then him along with your same shadow had Shilpi said that our family." Then, we come upon Supriya, daughter was under took Supriya with us which was why she the shadow of spirits. and departed for had become dizzy At that time, our home. and fallen in the daughter was also bathroom. there. She had come My wife asked Shilpi there. how she knew that I asked Shilpi how our daughter was she knew that our under the shadow of daughter was under spirits. Shilpi said the shadow of spirits. that there is a girl Shilpi said that there named Bhavya, who was a girl named also experiences Bhavya, in whom spirits, and that girl spirits come, and she had said that Supriya had said that our was under the daughter was under shadow of spirits. the shadow of spirits. Shilpi said that they Shilpi also said that had spoken to Asha they had spoken to Ram, informed him, Asha Ram, that he and that Asha Ram had called, and that had given a mantra, we should take and by the effect of Supriya to wherever that mantra, our Asha Ram was. She daughter was now also said not to take fine. Shilpi also said her anywhere else, that Asha Ram had only to Asha Ram. instructed that The director of Supriya should be Gurukul in sent to her, and that Chhindwara was there was no need to Sharad Chandra. I take her anywhere did not meet him. My else or show her husband met him. anywhere; Asha Ram When my husband had already been met Sharad Chandra, informed. my daughter and I We then asked where were outside the we could meet Asha room. My husband's Ram, and Shilpi said meeting with Sharad that Sharad sir would Chandra was on tell us. We went to the 09/08/2013. Gurukul and met After meeting him on Sharad sir. Sharad is 9th August, at around the director of the 9:30-10:00 AM, my Gurukul. I know husband, my Sharad, who is daughter, and I present in Court. departed from Sharad told us that Chhindwara to our daughter was Shahjahanpur. My under the shadow of (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (60 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] husband told me that spirits and that Asha Sharad Chandra had Ram had called us to told him that Asha meet him along with Ram would be in our family. We asked Delhi on 12th or 13th Sharad where we August, and that we could meet Asha could meet him Ram, and he said that there, that they had he would probably be already spoken to in Delhi on the 12th him, and that our or 13th, and for the daughter was under rest, Shiva would the shadow of spirits. inform us. Then we left Chhindwara and departed for our home in Shahjahanpur. Date:10.08.2013 The next day after We went from We reached home on After coming to our we reached home, Chhindwara to 10.8.2013 home, we spoke to my husband inquired Shahjahanpur Shiva, and Shiva told about Asha Ram because we had to us that on 12th from Shiva, who is prepare to go to August 2013, they Asha Ram's main Delhi, take clothes, will come to the servant, and he told and money, etc. Rajokri Ashram in us that Asha Ram Delhi and asked us to would come to the reach there. Ashram in Delhi 11.08.2013 to 13.08.2013 Then we departed for In Shahjahanpur, in On 11/8/13, after Then we spoke to Delhi. After reaching front of me, my conversation with Shiva again on Delhi, my husband husband spoke to Asha Ram's servant 11/8/2013 to confirm, called Shiva from the Shiva, and he had Shiva, he asked us to and Shiva said to station, and he told told us that Asha reach the Rajokri come to Delhi. On the us that Asha Ram's Ram would come to Ashram in Delhi on night of 11th August, mood had changed, Delhi on the 12th- 12/8/13. On the my wife, daughter, and he is in Jodhpur. 13th. My husband morning of 12/8, and I departed and That day we stayed had this conversation after reaching Delhi, reached Delhi on 12th in Delhi at my sister with Shiva on 11th we contacted Shiva August. After Babita's place, and August. We departed from the station, and reaching Delhi, we the next day, from Shahjahanpur he informed us that spoke to Shiva, and probably on the 13th, for Delhi on 11th Asha Ram was in Shiva informed us we departed from August at around Jodhpur. Then, on that Asha Ram was in Delhi by train. 10:30-11:00 PM. We 13/8, we Jodhpur and that we reached Delhi on the immediately made a should come to morning of 12th sleeper reservation in Jodhpur. I know August. That day, we the Mandor Express Shiva, who is present tried to find out from Delhi. in Court today. which Ashram Asha Then we asked Shiva Ram was in, but we how we could reach could not find out. Jodhpur, and Shiva Therefore, we spoke said to come by to Shiva again. My Mandor Express or husband then told me Jaisalmer Express. that he had spoken to We could not get a Shiva and asked him reservation for the where Asha Ram 12th, so we booked (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (61 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] was, and Shiva told tickets for the 13th of him that Asha Ram August. was in Jodhpur and said to come quickly. I was present when my husband spoke to Shiva. On 13th August, we did not get a reservation, and they said that a reservation was not available on 12th August either, so that day we stayed at my sister's place. Then, on the night of 13th August, we departed from Delhi for Jodhpur. 14.08.2013 On the morning of On the morning of On the morning of And on 14th August, the 14th, we reached 14th August, we 14/8/13, we reached we reached Jodhpur Jodhpur station. My reached Jodhpur at Jodhpur station. At and arrived at the husband Karmveer, around 10:30-11:00 Jodhpur station, we railway station. When Supriya, and I were AM. Then we went spoke to Shiva, and we reached the all together. We got to the waiting room, he gave us the railway station, Shiva ready in the railway bathed, and did other address of the Manai called and asked station waiting room. preparations. Then Kutia. We asked the where we were, and My husband asked my husband spoke to auto drivers, but all we told him that we Shiva for Asha Shiva, and Shiva of them refused to had reached Jodhpur Ram's whereabouts informed us that tell us the way to the railway station. Then, over the phone, and Asha Ram was in a Kutia. Then Shiva after freshening up at he told us that he was village called Manai arranged for an auto Jodhpur railway in Manai for solitary and told us to come driver, who took us station, we asked the retreat. We spoke to there. Then we went to Manai in about ¾- way to Manai, but no the auto drivers on to Manai village by 1 hour. When we one was willing to tell Shiva's instruction, auto. My daughter, reached the Ashram us. Then we asked and then they took us my husband, and I all in Manai, the main Shiva and inquired to Manai. At the went together. iron gate of the about the way to main gate of the When we reached Ashram was closed. Manai. Shiva spoke Ashram in Manai, there, the main gate We waited outside to the auto driver. there was a lock. At of the farm was for a little while, Shiva had given the first, we waited, and closed. Then my then, through Shiva, address of Manai. then my husband husband tried to get we arranged a Then, when Shiva spoke to Shiva, and the gate opened after conversation at the explained the route to on his instruction, we seeing it, but there gate over the phone, the auto driver, we went inside to meet was no one there, so and after that, we went to Manai by Asha Ram Ji. my husband spoke to were allowed to auto. Shiva again. After enter. In Manai, there was a speaking to Shiva, large farm from the the gate was opened. Ashram. When we I do not remember reached there, we who came to open realized that Asha the gate. After the Ram's Ashram was gate was opened, we here. There was a went inside. large iron gate, which was closed. Since the gate was closed, we (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (62 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] spoke to Shiva, and Shiva got the gate opened. The conversation with Shiva was over the phone.
42. In light of the above testimonies, adverting to 'Exhibit D-04 NGO Report', the learned Trial Court observed/held (in Para 102 of the impugned judgment) as under :-
"Aforesaid document was exhibited in the cross-examination during the evidence of P.W- 5 "S" on 22-5-2014 by defendants. Regarding this document, the prosecution has been objecting that as said document does not fall under the category of previous statements, it cannot be used to confront with the witness. The defendants are of opinion that as the said report was inscribed according to witness statements, this report falls under category of previous statements by Section 145 of The Evidence Act.
I have carefully considered both the parties. Said document is report sent to Police Officer, Kamla Market Station, New Delhi; by Kiran Jha Thakur and is not statement of the victim. P.W-7 Kiran Jha Thakur in her testimony before the Court has stated that, as victim kept sharing her statements, she took whatever seemed relevant as judged by herself and wrote down this report in her own language. She mentions submitting brief report. In this situation, report exhibit D-04 cannot be stated as previous statement of the victim. Because neither does it contain all facts as conveyed by victim to Kiran Jha Thakur and nor is in victim's own language. So, objection is accepted."
To the similar effect are the observations/findings re-iterated in para 349 of the impugned judgment. We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned trial Court. The said NGO report Ex D-4 had been prepared by Ms Kiran Jha Thakur, was a sort of counseling report. It was not even signed by the prosecutrix. The same cannot be treated as the latter's statement and relied upon to prove its inconsistency with any other statement of prosecutrix.
43. As regards the recording of statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC Ex. P/7 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, leaves much to be desired. At the start of her statement Ex P/7 under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix had stated her age as 16 years. The case had been registered, inter alia, under Sections 375/376 IPC. She was the victim of the offences which were quite grave in nature. In such situation, recording of her statement under the Section, ibid, required extra objectivity, sensitivity, care and attention.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (63 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] 43.1. The offence of rape defined in Section 375 IPC and punishable under Section 376 IPC is attracted if the offender applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person. As against this, the act kissing elsewhere on the body does not attract the said offence, but constitutes different and lesser degree offence. While recording the Statement of prosecutrix, the learned Magistrate ought to have been alive to this clear legal distinction between application of offenders mouth to (kissing) the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman, which attracted Sections 375/376 IPC and kissing simplicitor which constituted other lower degree offence.
43.2. The prosecutrix, in the course recording of this statement, had also stated that the appellant was kissing her repeatedly and it was after one to one plus half hours, that he had left her. She had not specified which part/s of the her body had been kissed by him. Considering that the FIR had been lodged, inter alia, under Sections 375/376 IPC, it would make a world of difference to the case depending on whether the victim was also kissed on her vagina, anus, urethra, which attracted Sections 375/376 IPC or it was kissing simplicitor on other parts of the body, which would not attract the said offences. The prosecutrix - a young child, was unlikely to know of the distinction in law between kissing of specific parts of body and the different consequences.
43.3. Such being the situation, we are of the opinion that before concluding her statement, the learned Magistrate was expected to clear the position about this material fact by himself questioning the prosecutrix as to which specific part/s of her body had been kissed; and depending upon her answer, to elicit further clarification appropriately, if necessary. That was not done. The omission, in our opinion, was quite significant which substantially and materially diminished the sanctity and considerably reduced the evidentiary value and worth of the statement (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (64 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] Ex P/7 under Section 164 CrPC as recorded. Intrinsic reliance cannot, therefore, be placed on it to contradict the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix in Court to the effect that the appellant had, inter alia, disrobed her and kissed her vagina.
43.4. To be noted here that in cross-examination on 12.06.2014, the prosecutrix, no doubt, admitted that in her statement Ex P/7 (under Section 164 CrPC) before the Learned Magistrate, the fact of kissing on her private part was not recorded, but had volunteered to state that it had been recorded that the appellant (Asha Ram @ Ashumal) had molested her forcibly for about one to one plus half hours, he was kissing and hugging her and that she thought that 'kissing every where' included 'kissing of vagina'. On this point she was not cross-examined further.
44. Coming now to the initial handwritten report Ex. P/4 submitted by the prosecutrix to Delhi Police. On a careful perusal of the document, it is clear to the naked eye that therein, initially the prosecutrix had written the relevant text thus- "Us ne zabardasti mere kapde utaare" - "उसनe ज़बरद)* मeरe कपड़e उतारeI."- Thereafter, firstly by overwriting, the word "utaare" उतारe was changed to "utaarne" उतारनe; secondly by drawing a horizontal line across the overwritten word "utaarne" उतारनe was struck off. Thereafter, the word "utaarne" उतारनe was re-written. With this change, the formation of the sentence became- "Us ne zabardasti mere kapde utaarne laga".-
"उसनe ज़बरद)* मeरe कपड़e उतारनe लगा ."- Thus, by over-writing, striking off and then re-writing, the initially written text "उसनe ज़बरद)* मeरe कपड़e उतारe" (us ne mere kapde utaare ) was changed to "उसनe ज़बरद)* मeरe कपड़e उतारनe लगा "- "Us ne zabardasti mere kapde utaarne laga".
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (65 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] 44.1. Obviously, this formation of the sentence in Hindi language is grammatically wrong.
44.2. To be noted that the appellant (Asha Ram @ Ashumal ) was a known religious guru and had mass following. The family of the prosecutrix and she herself were his longtime staunch devotees. The appellant was a young girl aged 16 years. Offences committed on 15.08.2013 by the appellant would have stunned the prosecutrix, caused grave mental pain, shock and trauma to her. After tiring road journey from Shahjahanpur with her parents, the prosecutrix had arrived at Delhi late in the evening of 19.08.2013. They reached Police Station, Kamla Nagar at about 11:30 pm. There, on being referred by the duty officer to ASI Pushp Lata, they had met her. The prosecutrix orally interacted with her about the incident, after which the latter asked her to write and give her report writing. At the police station itself, the prosecutrix then wrote the fairly lengthy report Ex. P-4. After completion, she gave it to PW-1 Pushplata ASI. The latter wrote the date 20.08.2013 signifying it's submission to and receipt by her.
44.3. The facts and circumstances show that while writing the report Ex. P-4 in the dead of night (between 19.08.2013 and 20.08.2013), the prosecutrix would be quite tired and fatigued and would not have yet overcome her mental pain, trauma, shock, stress and confusion because of the offences committed by the appellant. She would also have been quite worried about her own and family's honour, safety and her reputation and future life. The prosecutrix would not have been in calm, composed, stable and strong state of mind and perhaps had not gathered sufficient courage, confidence and strength to stand up to the appellant. 44.4. In our opinion, all these factors weighed heavily on the mind of the prosecutrix and had contributed to her predicament, confusion and dilemma at the time of writing the police report. Fear for her own and the (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (66 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] family's future, honour, image, safety and security was in her mind. Despite all that, somehow, initially the prosecutrix gathered some courage and confidence and wrote in report Ex P-4 that "Us ne zabardasti mere kapde utaare". Immediately after writing this, on sudden flashback, it seems that her courage and confidence partly gave way to the fear persisting in the mind for her own and the family's future, honour, safety and security. She then changed the said text to "Us ne zabardasti mere kapde utaarne laga" hoping that the change would reduce the risk to her own and the family's honour, image, safety and security. As already noted, this formation of the sentence in Hindi language is grammatically wrong.
46. A famous Urdu couplet here-
"क़र4ब ह6 यारो रोज़e महशर, छuपeगा कu<o का ख?न @o कर;
जो चuप रहeग* ज़बानe खCजर, लD पuकारeगा आ)F काI
-अम*रम*नाई"
47. Translated in English it means -
"The day of judgment is approaching, murder of the innocent would not remain hidden;
Even if the dagger (metaphor for the offender and witnesses) remain mum, blood from the sleeve will cry out (reveal the offence) ".
Idea conveyed is that crime will not go unnoticed, ultimately the truth is bound to come out in one or the other way.
Excellent combination of poetry and juristic vision !!
48. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the initial and earliest version of the prosecutrix written in her police report Ex P/4 was that the appellant had forcibly disrobed her "Us ne zabardasti mere kapde utaare". However, immediately after its writing, on a sudden flash back in the circumstances and for the reasons as noted above, this version was changed to "Us ne zabardasti mere kapde utaarne laga" hoping that (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (67 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] the change would reduce the risk to her own and the family's future, honour, image, safety and security.
48.1. One ought to be mindful that the plight of a rape victim is not confined to the physical violation alone; it is a profound assault on dignity, identity, and self-worth. The abhorrent nature of the offence is such that when the honour of a young girl/woman is torn apart, she is left grappling not only with trauma, but with an overwhelming sense of shame imposed by society. Her self-esteem is shattered. She must endure the silent cruelty of insinuating glances and prying eyes that seem to brand her as "the one". It is this suffocating stigma, this fear of judgment, whisper, and social ostracism, that compels many survivors to retreat into silence. Rather than risk being scrutinized, doubted, or diminished, they conceal their suffering, even when doing so means allowing the perpetrator to escape accountability.
48.2. In the case in hand, a child who, along with her parents, did not merely trust the man, whom they worshiped as a Godman, but she consecrated that trust. She came to him not as a stranger, but as a disciple. She came with folded hands, not knowing that the very sanctum she sought refuge in had become a predator's lair. How to fight such a powerful man, it required lot of self-persuasion and courage and overcoming of the fears. This is the mindset she was grappling with.
49. In this backdrop, there was no significant gap of time between submission of police report Ex P/4 (as changed) and the recording of zero FIR registered at Police Station, Kamala Nagar, Delhi, submission of NGO report, recording of the statement under 164 CrPC and the subsequent lodging of the FIR registered at jurisdictional Police Station, Jodhpur. The prosecutrix would have been still under shock, stress, fear, worry and anxiety at the time of their recording. Besides, at the relevant time, she would have thought that consistency was desirable inter se her initial (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (68 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] version in police report Ex P/4 (as changed by over-writing, cutting and re-writing) and her subsequent versions at the time of recording of zero FIR at Police Station, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, the NGO report, the statement under 164 CrPC and the FIR registered at Jodhpur. The version in police report Ex P/4 (as changed) was thus carried over to the zero FIR dated 20.08.2013 registered at Delhi, the NGO report and the statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded same day.
50. Statement Ex D-2 of the prosecutrix under Section 161 CrPC was recorded by Ms. Chanchal Mishra, ACP. The same was got produced, exhibited in evidence and relied upon by the defence itself. While deposing in Court, the prosecutrix stated, inter alia, that appellant (Asha Ram @ Ashumal) had disrobed her and kissed her private part. No attempt was made to contradict this part of her testimony in Court by confronting her with her statement Ex. D-2 under Section 161 CrPC. The inference is obvious.
51. It seems that with passage of time and change of circumstances, the progress and completion of investigation, the prosecutrix overcame her stress, fear and anxiety, could gather necessary courage and confidence to state relevant facts more categorically and specifically.
52. We have held above that by over-writing, striking off and then re- writing, the initially written text of police report Ex. P/4 - "उसनe ज़बरद)* मeरe कपड़e उतारe" (us ne mere kapde utaare) was changed to "उसनe ज़बरद)* मeरe कपड़e उतारनe लगा " - "Us ne zabardasti mere kapde utaarne laga". In police report Ex P/4 (even as changed), subsequent Zero FIR Ex P/11 dated 20.08.2013 lodged at Police Station Kamla Nagar, Delhi, NGO report, the FIR dated 21.08.2013 Ex P/106 registered at Police Station, Mahila (West), Jodhpur, the fact of kissing everywhere was categorically recorded.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (69 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
53. Thus read, the testimony of the prosecutrix in the Court about kissing of her vagina is in consonance with the initial and unchanged text of police report Ex P/4, including the text "Us ne zabardasti mere kapde utaare".
54. While deposing in Court, the prosecutrix stated that she thought 'kissing everywhere' included 'kissing of vagina'. She was a child aged 16 years at the time of submitting her handwritten report Ex P/4 to the police, lodging zero FIR at Delhi, preparation of NGO report by Ms. Kiran Thakur Jha, recording of statement under Section 164 CrPC and subsequent lodging of FIR at Jodhpur in August, 2013. She was unlikely to know of the distinction in law between kissing of specific parts of body and the different consequences. For a lay person, particular a child, the words 'every part of the body' obviously would include 'vagina'. To our mind, she had given a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the absence of specific words 'kissing of vagina' in the handwritten report to Delhi Police, zero FIR registered at Delhi, the NGO report, the statement under Section 164 CrPC and FIR registered at Jodhpur.
55. It has been held above that initially written text of police report Ex. P/4 was "उसनe ज़बरद)* मeरe कपड़e उतारe" (us ne mere kapde utaare). By overwriting, stirking off and then re-writing, it was changed to "उसनe ज़बरद)* मeरe कपड़e उतारनe लगा "- "Us ne zabardasti mere kapde utaarne laga". There was no significant gap of time between submission of police report Ex P/4 (as changed) and the recording of zero FIR registered at Police Station, Kamala Nagar Delhi, during NGO counselling, in the statement under Section 164 CrPC and the FIR registered at Jodhpur. The prosecutrix would have been still under shock, stress, fear, worry and anxiety at the time of their recording. Besides, at the relevant time, she would have naturally thought that consistency was desirable inter se her (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (70 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] initial version in police report Ex P/4 (though changed by over-writing, cutting and re-writing) and her subsequent versions at the time of recording of zero FIR registered at Police Station, Kamla Nagar Delhi, during NGO counselling, in the statement under Section 164 CrPC and the FIR registered at Jodhpur. The version in police report Ex P/4 (as changed) was thus carried over to the zero FIR dated 20.08.2013 registered at Delhi, the NGO report and the statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded same day. In such situation, the absence of specific words 'उतारe' 'disrobed' in the changed text and 'kissing of vagina' in the handwritten report with the changed text submitted by the prosecutrix to Delhi Police, zero FIR lodged at Delhi, the NGO report and statement under Section 164 CrPC and FIR registered at Jodhpur, in our opinion, is not fatal to sworn testimony of the prosecutrix in the Court. Therein, she swore that the appellant had also disrobed her "He made an attempt to undress me, removed my salvaar and kissed my vagina." (statement recorded in Hindi - मI इस घटना सe शॉकड रह गई, iक iजस आदम* को मI भगवान समझत* थ*, उसनe मeरe साथ ऐस* iघनौन* हरक़त कX, मeरe कपड़e खोलनe कX कोiशश कX, मeर4 सलवार उतार दY थ*, मI तो कuछ सोच ह* नहF पा रह* थ* .-उZoनe मeरe [ाइवeट पाट\ पर, मuCह पर और सभ* जगह iक^ iकया था).
56. On collective and objective reading of the record with the testimony of the prosecutrix in Court, fairly, reasonably and without undue hair- splitting, we are inclined to hold that the fact of 'disrobing the prosecutrix' and 'kissing of vagina' were/are obvious and evident and stood established on record.
57. The discrepancy about disrobing and kissing of vagina of the prosecutrix, inter se, versions of the prosecutrix in report of the incident lodged with the police, zero FIR lodged at Delhi, NGO report, her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the FIR lodged at (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (71 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] Jodhpur vis-à-vis the deposition of the prosecutrix in Court has been dealt with and explained in the preceding part of this judgment.
58. The prosecutrix deposed in Court that she had thought that 'kissing everywhere' included her private part. To our mind, this was a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the absence of specific words 'kissing of vagina' in the handwritten report of the incident lodged with Delhi Police, zero FIR lodged at Delhi, NGO report, her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the FIR lodged at Jodhpur. Further, the prosecutrix deposed in Court, inter alia, that she was disrobed and kissed on the vagina by appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal.
59. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, on this material fact, the testimony of the prosecutrix in Court is in consonance with her earliest version in the unchanged police report Ex P/4. Despite lengthy and grueling cross-examination on numerous dates, this part of her testimony could not be shaken. The same, in our opinion, ought not to be discarded merely because alongside the words 'kissed everywhere' actually written, the specific words 'disrobed' and 'vagina' were not mentioned in the changed text of police report Ex P/4, zero FIR lodged at Delhi, NGO report and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC and FIR registered at jurisdictional Police Station, Jodhpur.
60. It is not disputed that since her admission to 7th class, the prosecutrix was studying in Chhindwara Gurukul School named after appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal who was a religious guru; she was a hostel resident and that appellants Shilpi @ Sanchita and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra were the Hostel Warden and School Director (Principal), respectively at the relevant time. The prosecutrix has been consistent throughout about her fall in the hostel bathroom and the complaint of dizziness. PWs Sunita Singh, Karamvir Singh were consistent and (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (72 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] unanimous throughout in stating that after telephonic conversation with appellant Shilpi @ Sanchita, they had come to Chhindwara to meet her. 60.1. The prosecutrix also deposed that she too was present at that meeting; that appellant Shilpi @ Sanchita had told them that she had spoken to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal about the problem of the prosecutrix and he had advised that she be brought to him for ghost healing. PWs Sunita Singh, Karamvir Singh and the prosecutrix were also consistent and unanimous in their versions that appellant Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra too had told them that the prosecutrix be taken to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal for ghost healing. They were also consistent and unanimous about their going to Manai Ashram and there meeting and attending the satsang of appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal on 14.08.2013, having stayed at Manai for the night of 14.08.2013 and attending the satsang on 15.08.2013. PWs Sunita Singh, Karamvir Singh and the prosecutrix deposed that after the satsang, while other devotees were leaving the Ashram, appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal had asked them to stay on. They were also unanimous in saying that at the asking of the appellant, they were doing jaap at the concrete path when the prosecutrix was asked to go behind the kutiya and continue her jaap there and the prosecutrix went there while her parents remained at the same place. The prosecutrix was throughout consistent in her version on the material facts and events after her moving to the backside of the kutiya, having been called inside and the offences committed by appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal inside the kutiya.
61. On careful appraisal of the record and the impugned judgment, we are of the opinion that on material facts and events, the prosecution witnesses have been consistent in their respective versions at various stages and that there is no unexplained material discrepancy, inter se, their depositions in Court.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (73 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
62. In our opinion, the aforesaid remaining discrepancies pointed out by the learned defence counsel are on minute peripheral details and do not erode or destroy the substratum of the case.
63. Human perception is not a precision instrument. The ability to observe, absorb, retain, and recount varies profoundly from person to person, shaped by temperament, attention, and the irreversible passage of time. Memory, by its very nature, is not a photograph; it is a living, fading impression. As hours become days and days become years, even the sharpest recollections begin to soften at the edges. It is no surprise, then and certainly no mark of dishonesty, that truthful witnesses may stumble on peripheral details, contradict themselves on the margins, or waver when subjected to the relentless pressure of a protracted cross- examination. These are not the fingerprints of a liar; they are the leftover memories of an ordinary human being, faithfully trying to recall what time has already begun to erase.
63.1. Time spares no one, and neither does forgetting. Memory, however vivid at first, quietly yields to the passage of time. Even the sharpest human intelligence slowly surrenders to time. Because of such factors and natural fading of memory with lapse of time, minor discrepancies on minute peripheral details do arise even in the statements of truthful witnesses, more so when subjected to lengthy cross-examination, as in present case (cross examination of the victim runs into 81 pages).
64. We, therefore, reject the contention that the prosecution story was rendered highly doubtful because of the discrepancies, inter se, the own versions of the prosecutrix, PWs Sunita Singh and Karamvir Singh at various stages and the discrepancies, inter se, their depositions during trial in the Court or that the learned Trial Court erred in ignoring them and accepting the prosecution story.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (74 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
65. It was also contended that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix could not be taken as gospel in the absence of any corroboration. We do not agree. The evidence has to be weighed and evaluated and not counted or measured by volume. If the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is found reliable and credible, the same cannot be discarded merely for want of corroboration. In present case, we are of the opinion that the testimony of the prosecutrix in support of the charges against appellant Asha Ram @Ashumal remained unimpeached, was reliable and credible, inspired confidence and the learned Trial Court rightly accepted the same.
66. It was contended that the story of the prosecutrix having entered the kutiya was unbelievable as in her handwritten complaint, statement under Section 164 CrPC and NGO report, there was absolutely no reference about the existence of a bathroom of the kutiya. The same was introduced for the first time in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 CrPC. We are unable to accept the contention. Actual existence of a bathroom adjoining the kutiya is not disputed. Mere absence of its specific reference in the handwritten complaint of the prosecutrix, statement under Section 164 CrPC and NGO report does not falsify the deposition of the prosecutrix about existence of the bathroom and the story of her having entered the kutiya.
67. In the earlier part of this judgment, we have upheld the finding recorded in the impugned judgment that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 04.07.1997. It follows that on the date of commission of the offence (15.08.2013), she was below 18 years of age.
68. The prosecutrix categorically stated that when she tried to raise alarm (scream) and to resist appellant's (Asha Ram @ Ashumal) inappropriate touch and attempt to molest her, she was gagged and threatened by him that if she would reveal the incident to anyone, her family would be finished. The appellant had disrobed her and kissed her (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (75 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] vagina and committed the various offences. About this version, her testimony could not be shaken in cross-examination. 68.1. In present case, at the time of commission of the offence on 15.08.2013, the appellant was the religious guru of the prosecutrix and she was his devotee since 2006. Obviously, the appellant was in a position of trust or authority towards the prosecutrix.
69. The prosecutrix deposed, inter alia, that the appellant had removed her salwar and kissed her private part. During cross-examination while admitting that in the police report, NGO report, statement under Section 164 CrPC, she had not mentioned about kissing of her private part, she added that she had written of the kissing everywhere, which included her private part. Her testimony on this point and about kissing of her private part by the appellant could not be shaken in cross-examination. It was in consonance with her earliest version (before change of text) in handwritten complaint Ex P-4.
69.1. In the earlier part of this judgment, by giving reasons, it has been observed/held that the initial and earliest version of the prosecutrix written in her police report Ex P/4 was that the appellant had forcibly disrobed her "Us ne zabardasti mere kapde utaare" and that the absence of specific words 'kissing of vagina' in the changed handwritten report submitted by the prosecutrix to Delhi Police, zero FIR lodged at Delhi, the NGO report and statement under Section 164 CrPC and the FIR registered at Jodhpur, is not fatal to the aforesaid version showing, inter alia, that the appellant had disrobed the prosecutrix and kissed her vagina.
70. The lengthy testimony of the prosecutrix during trial was recorded on numerous dates. Learned Trial Court, after elaborate discussion and evaluation of the evidence on record and dealing with contentions on both sides, concluded that the appellant not only restrained the prosecutrix, rather tried to insert his penis in her mouth by removing all his clothes (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (76 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] which means he manipulated her body in the manner so that he can penetrate in her mouth [attracting Section 375(c) IPC]; he also kissed on the private parts of the girl meaning thereby he applied his mouth to the vagina of the prosecutrix, not only touched her body with his hands, rather has kissed her vagina with his mouth [attracting Section 375 (d) of IPC].
70.1. Learned Trial Court was also found that after the incident, the prosecutrix went out of the kutiya and went to her mother PW-12 Sunita Singh, who was waiting for her at some distance from the kutiya. From there, both of them went to the house of the local person where their stay had been arranged. Next morning, the prosecutrix and both of her parents left for Shahjahanpur (UP). For the first time, the prosecutrix revealed the incident to her mother on 19.08.2013. 70.2. The learned Trial Court found that the prosecution story including penetrative sexual assault, rape causing criminal confinement of the prosecutrix, doing her sexual harassment, causing criminal intimidation on her and the appellant's showing his penis in front of her with the purpose of dishonouring her modesty had been proved.
71. In our opinion, the ingredients of the offence under Section 375 (c) & (d) punishable under Section 376 IPC were thus satisfied. To our mind, the learned Trial Court rightly accepted the said evidence for convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC. We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Trial Court. Consequently, we repel the contention that ingredients of Section 375 IPC had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt or that the prosecution had failed to prove the commission of offence defined under Section 375 IPC, punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC.
72. We thus reject the contention that the ingredients for the application of Section 375/376(2)(f) IPC were not met and that the (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (77 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] learned Trial Judge wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the same.
73. It was contended that prosecution had failed to prove that offences allegedly committed by appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal fall within the scope of Section 5(g) of the POCSO Act, 2012 punishable under Section 6 thereof. Para 368 of the impugned judgment is as under:
"368- In the matter in hand from the evidence it has proved that accused not only kept caught the girl but also after putting of his own entire clothes tried to penetrate his penis her mouth, in other words in this manner manipulated her body so that we can done penetrated his penis in her mouth and he also kissed on the private part of the girl, in other words he applied his mouth on the vagina of the girl. Accused not only merely touched body of the victim but also he has kissed her vagina from his mouth also. Therefore, commission of penetration - sexual assault and forcible rape by the accused on prosecutrix "Su" is proved beyond doubt. Along with it commission of wrongful confinement of the girl, commission of her sexual extortion, commission of causing criminal intimidation and with the intention for out raising her modesty, exhibiting his penis before her has been proved beyond doubt."
On perusal of the record of the case, we find the aforesaid contention to be tenable as the ingredients of section 5(g) of the POCSO Act, 2012 are not attracted on the basis of material on record. We are thus not in agreement with the aforesaid finding of fact. On the other hand, it appears that offence under section 5(p) of the POCSO Act, 2012 seems to be made out.
73.1. Pertinently, while passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court neither recorded any finding of conviction against the appellant for the offence under Section 5(p) of the POCSO Act, 2012, nor framed any charge under said section 5(p). The respondent State has not filed any appeal or cross-objections against the impugned judgment. This being the position, while dealing with the appeal of the convict, he cannot be convicted for the commission of the offence under section 5(p) even if said section is attracted.
73.2. However, in terms of Section 222 of the CrPC (Section 245 of BNSS, 2023), on the proved facts of the case, an accused can be convicted of the minor offence, though he is not charged with it. In our opinion, the (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (78 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] instant case warrants the invocation of the said provision i.e. Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. This omission by the learned Trial Court needs rectification.
73.3. For ready reference, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the POCSO Act, 2012 are reproduced herein below:
"3. Penetrative sexual assault. A person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault"
if-
(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person.
4. Punishment for penetrative sexual assault. () Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine. (3) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.
5. Aggravated penetrative sexual assault.- (a) Whoever, being a police officer, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child -
(i) within the limits of the police station or premises at which he is appointed; or
(ii) in the premises of any station house, whether or not situated in the police station, to which he is appointed; or
(iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or
(iv) where he is known as, or identified as, a police officer; or
(b) whoever being a member of the armed forces or security forces commits penetrative sexual assault on a child-
(i) within the limits of the area to which the person is deployed; or
(ii) in any areas under the command of the forces or armed forces; or
(iii) in the course of his duties or otherwise; or
(iv) where the said person is known or identified as a member of the security or armed forces; or
(c) whoever being a public servant commits penetrative sexual assault on a child; or
(d) whoever being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection established by or under any law for the time being in force, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, being inmate of such jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection; or
(e) whoever being on the management or staff of a hospital, whether Government or private, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that hospital; or
(f) whoever being on the management or staff of an educational institution or religious institution, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that institution; or
(g) whoever commits gang penetrative sexual assault on a child. Explanation. When a child is subjected to sexual assault by one or more persons of a group in furtherance of their common intention, each of such persons shall be deemed to have committed gang penetrative sexual assault within the meaning of this clause and each of such person shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone; or
(h) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child using deadly weapons, fire, heated substance or corrosive substance; or (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (79 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
(i) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault causing grievous hurt or causing bodily harm and injury or injury to the sexual organs of the child; or
(j) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child, which-
(i) physically incapacitates the child or causes the child to become mentally ill as defined under clause (1) of section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (14 of 1987) or causes impairment of any kind so as to render the child unable to perform regular tasks, temporarily or permanently;
(ii) in the case of female child, makes the child pregnant as a consequence of sexual assault;
(iii) inflicts the child with Human Immunodeficiency Virus or any other life threatening disease or Infection which may either temporarily or permanently impair the child by rendering him physically incapacitated, or mentally ill to perform regular tasks;
(iv) causes death of the child; or
(k) whoever, taking advantage of a child's mental or physical disability, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child; or
(l) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on the child more than once or repeatedly; or
(m) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or
(n) whoever being a relative of the child through blood or adoption or marriage or guardianship or in foster care or having a domestic relationship with a parent of the child or who is living in the same or shared household with the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on such child; or
(o) whoever being, in the ownership, or management, or staff, of any institution providing services to the child, commits penetrative sexual assault on the child; or
(p) whoever being in a position of trust or authority of a child commits penetrative sexual assault on the child in an institution or home of the child or anywhere else; or
(q) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child knowing the child is pregnant; or
(r) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and attempts to murder the child; or
(s) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in the course of [communal or sectarian violence or during any natural calamity or in similar situations]; or
(t) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and who has been previously convicted of having committed any offence under this Act or any sexual offence punishable under any other law for the time being in force; or (u) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child and makes the child to strip or parade naked in public, is said to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault." 73.4. As would be seen, under Section 3 (c) of the POCSO Act, 2012, a person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person. Under Section 3(d) a person is said to commit penetrative sexual assault if applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person. It has been observed/opined above, by giving reasons, that after calling the prosecutrix inside the kutiya, the various offences had been committed inside the kutiya by appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal inter alia, by applying his mouth to her vagina. Ingredients of Sections 3 and 4, ibid, thus stand satisfied. The offence (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (80 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] falling within the scope of Section 3 of the POCSO Act, 2012 punishable under Section 4 thereof thus stood proved. It is held accordingly. The contention to the contrary is, therefore, rejected.
74. It was contended by learned defence counsel that the prosecution had failed to prove that qua appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal, provisions of Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act were attracted in the case. We are unable to accept this contention. The Section, ibid, provides that whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child, unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable under the Section, ibid. Learned Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, held that the said appellant was in actual charge and control over the prosecutrix, who was less than 18 years of age on the date, time and place of the commission of various offences by him. In the proved facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to differ with this view taken by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, we reject the contention that the prosecution had failed to prove that qua appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal, provisions of Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act were attracted in the case.
75. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that at the time of commission of the offence on 15.08.2013, the appellant was the religious guru of the prosecutrix and she was his devotee since 2006 and was less than 18 years of age. Obviously, the appellant was in a position of trust or authority towards the prosecutrix. It has been proved on record that the appellant had asked Sanchita @ Shilpi and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra that the parents of the prosecutrix should bring her to him for solving her problem of shadow of ghosts. When the prosecutrix was (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (81 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] brought to him, he called her inside his kutiya and committed the offences against her including penetrative sexual assault.
76. In the earlier part of this judgment, we have held that the commission of the offence of rape falling within the scope of Section 375(d) of IPC and punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Code as also the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 by appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal had been proved. The prosecution had proved that appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal had conveyed to the parents of the prosecutrix through appellant Sanchita @ Shilpi that the prosecutrix be brought to him for ghost healing and that accordingly, she was taken to him at his Ashram in Manai. There, on the pretext of ghost healing, he called and received the prosecutrix inside his kutiya and committed these offences. Obvious inference is that it was for the purpose of exploitation that the appellant had received the prosecutrix on the pretext of ghost healing by practising fraud and deception.
77. Thus, he had also committed the offence under Section 370 IPC. We, therefore, reject the contention that there was no evidence to show that it was for the purpose of exploitation that the appellant had received the prosecutrix on the pretext of ghost healing by practising fraud and deception so as to attract liability of appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal for the offence under Section 370 IPC.
78. We have already upheld the findings/conclusion recorded in the impugned judgment, inter alia, to the effect that at the relevant time, the appellant had restrained the prosecutrix. In other words, from the moment of her second entry inside the kutiya till after the commission of aforesaid offences and up to her exit from the kutiya, she was wrongfully confined inside the kutiya. Thus, the commission of offence of wrongful (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (82 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] confinement of the prosecutrix by the appellant punishable under Section 342 IPC stood proved.
79. Without repeating the relevant part of foregoing observations, we are of the opinion that it stood proved on record that the appellant had threatened the prosecutrix that her family would be finished, if she would raise her voice or ever reveal the incident to anyone. Thus, the commission of offence under Section 506 IPC by the appellant also stood proved.
80. As a result, we reject the contention that the prosecution had failed to prove the offences under Sections 370, 342 and 506 IPC.
81. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Trial Court based its findings/conclusions on the basis of record of the case without being influenced by any unfavourable antecedents of the appellant. In our opinion, there is no merit in the contention that the conviction and sentence of the appellant appear to be on moral grounds. The same is rejected.
82. It was contended that there was probable motive for false implication of the appellants. In Para 312 of the impugned judgment, learned Trial Court observed that in the comprehensive cross- examination of PW-21 Karamveer Singh, it had been suggested that he had hatched a conspiracy with former Director (of the School) Om Parkash Prajapati and Seema Ahuja, Warden of the Gurukul (hostel) to claim that a child to be born out of the latter's womb be projected as Avtaar of Kalki for collecting gifts and donations; that on the surfacing of this conspiracy, Om Parkash Prajapati and Seema Ahuja were ousted from the Gurukul and that he (Karamveer Singh), had hatched a conspiracy with former Director (of the School) Om Parkash Prajapati and Seema Ahuja, Warden of the Gurukul (hostel) and that in furtherance of (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (83 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] which he (Karamveer Singh) had filed this case through his daughter (the prosecutrix).
82.1. After noticing and analyzing the relevant evidence about so called conspiracy against the appellant and by giving cogent reasons in Paras 313 to 316, the learned Trial Court repelled this defence version and concluded in Para 317 as under:
"In my humble opinion, it is clear from the present evidence that the defence has been absolutely unsuccessful to connect any relation of the alleged KalkiAvtaar conspiracy of Om Prakash Prajapati and Seema Ahuja from the complainant Karamveer Singh. Forms Ex.-D-27 to Ex.-D-31 have been submitted on behalf of the accused persons. From this it appears the above forms were in their possession. This is not at all clear that how he received the above forms from Om Prakash Prajapati.This clearly shows that there is truth in the statements of PW-21 Karamveer Singh that the above forms were filled by him and his family members in the conclave of programmes of the accused Asha Ram. In my humble opinion, this plea of the defence is not at all acceptable that PW-21 Karamveer Singh would have hatched any conspiracy in connivance with Om Prakash Prajapti and Seema Ahuja, which led to this present case."
82.2. Learned Trial Court then dealt with the defence version that after hatching of a conspiracy, inter se, Pankaj Dubey, PW-21 Karamveer Singh, his daughter (the prosecutrix), Bhola Nand and others, the appellant (Asha Ram @ Ashumal) was falsely implicated in this case to extort an amount of Rs. 50 crores from him. After noticing and thoroughly analyzing the relevant evidence from Para 318 onwards, and by giving cogent reasons, the learned Trial Court recorded its conclusion in Para 340 of the impugned judgment and rejected the defence said plea of controversy. Para 340, ibid, reads as under:
"Therefore, according to the above deliberation, this plea of the defence side is not acceptable that Asha Ram would have been implicated by Pankaj Dubey, Karamveer Singh, Victim "Su", Bholanand and other persons for extorting Rs.50.00 Crores by hatching conspiracy.It is notable here that the accused Asha Ram would have been implicated under a pre-hatched conspiracy, then there was no need for the complainant to register First Information Report in Delhi while going to Delhi from Jodhpur via Jaipur and from there going to Shahjahanpur, coming to Delhi again, rather just after leaving Manai Ashram on 16.8.2013 he could have lodged report in Jodhpur. Registering report in Delhi and delay happened in registering the report itself shows that the complainant had no pre- planned conspiracy to implicate the accused Asha Ram, rather the report has been registered by the complainant side according to the circumstances of human nature."
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (84 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
83. We find no reason to differ with the aforesaid conclusions reached by the learned Trial Court in Paras 317 and 340 of the impugned judgment rejecting the defence version any motive and/or criminal conspiracy against the appellant and his implication on that account.
84. To add to it, we are also of the opinion that in any case, the aforesaid alleged conspiracies were aimed against appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal only and appellants Shilpi @ Sanchita and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra were not the targets therein. Nothing else is shown on record why the prosecutrix and her parents would falsely implicate them (appellants Shilpi @ Sanchita and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra) in this criminal case. We, therefore, reject the contention that there was probable motive for false implication of the appellants and that they had been falsely implicated on that account.
85. It was also contended that there were no aggravating circumstances warranting imposition of maximum sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal by the learned Trial Court.
85.1. Translated paras 7 and 8 of the sentencing order are as under:
"7- I have heard the arguments of both sides on sentence and carefully perused the case file.
8- The accused is Asha Ram Saint. It has been proved from the evidence adduced on the case file that not only in India but in the foreign countries also, there are lacs of his disciples. It has also been revealed through evidence that more than 400 Ashrams are functioning in the name of accused Asha Ram. Keeping in view the facts of the present case, it is revealed that the father of the prosecutrix "Su" was also a disciple of the accused Asha Ram. He played an important role in raising construction of an Ashram for Asha Ram in Shahjahanpur and he also got constructed a cottage for the accused Asha Ram there also. He was devoted to the accused Asha Ram to such an extent that he even sent his daughter prosecutrix "Su" and son Yashvir Singh to a Gurukul situated at Chhindwara, a place far from Shahjahanpur. As per the incidence, the accused Asha Ram separated the prosecutrix "Su" from her parents on the pretext of conducting chants and subsequently, he called her in his room and committed an act of misdemeanor with her. In my opinion, the accused Asha Ram has not only committed breach of trust of the complainant but he has also caused damage to the image of saints in the eyes of general public."
85.2. We see no reason to differ with the view in this behalf taken by the learned Trial Court and, therefore, repel contention contrary to it.
86. As already held, at the time of commission of the offence on 15.08.2013, the appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal was the religious guru (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (85 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] of the prosecutrix and she was his devotee since 2006 and was less than 18 years of age. Obviously, the appellant was in a position of trust or authority towards the prosecutrix. It has been proved on record that the appellant had asked Sanchita @ Shilpi and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra that the parents of the prosecutrix should bring her to him solving her problem of shadow of ghosts. When the prosecutrix was brought to him, he called her inside his kutiya and committed the offences against her including penetrative sexual assault. 86.1. As noted earlier, the appellant-Asha Ram appears to have committed the offence under Section 5(p) of the POCSO Act, 2012. But since the learned trial court did not record any finding of conviction for the said offence and the State has not filed cross-objection/appeal against the impugned judgment, while dealing with the appeal of the convict, the appellant could not be convicted for the commission of the said offence. However, in terms of Section 222 of the CrPC (Section 245 of BNSS, 2023), on the proved facts of the case, he is liable to be convicted of the minor offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 86.2. In the succeeding part of the judgment, it is being held that the offence of conspiracy, inter se, the appellants and the commission of offence of gang rape under Section 376D of IPC has not been proved. In view of this and the proved facts of the case as noted above, the conviction of appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal under clause (g) of Section 5 of the POCSO, Act 2012 is also not tenable. Accordingly, he has to be acquitted of charges under Section 5(g), ibid, but as already held, he is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
86.3. On a careful reading of the impugned judgment, we are inclined to hold that the rest of conclusions have been recorded by the learned Trial (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (86 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] Court after threadbare examination of record of the case and are consistent with the same and the applicable law, of course with the caveat/exception already given.
87. As regards Sanchita @ Shilpi and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra, appellants in the connected appeals, prosecution case and finding recorded by the learned Trial Court are that it was at the instance of these appellants, the parents of the prosecutrix had taken her to the appellant Asha Ram for solving her problem of shadow of ghosts.
88. Learned counsel for State has not brought to our notice any worthwhile material on record to show that they (Sanchita @ Shilpi and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra, appellants) had known, when they asked the parents of prosecutrix to take her to Asha Ram @ Ashumal appellant that he would commit any offences including rape on the prosecutrix. Impugned judgment does not refer to any such evidence.
89. It is against normal human nature that at the time of asking Sanchita @ Shilpi and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra to have the prosecutrix sent to him for ghost healing, appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal would have told them of his intention to sexually exploit her and/or commit any other offence against her. If at all they had known of any such intention of appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal, they were most unlikely to do his bidding. It is, therefore, difficult to say that there was a prior meeting of mind and conspiracy hatched amongst them to have the prosecutrix sent to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal for her sexual exploitation and/or commission of any other offence against her by appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal.
90. In our opinion it was highly unlikely that, if Sanchita @ Shilpi and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra or either of them would have been aware of any such evil intention of Asha Ram @ Ashumal appellant, they would have told the parents of the prosecutrix to take her to him.
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (87 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018]
91. It cannot, therefore, be the case that the act of Sanchita @ Shilpi and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra, having asked the parents of the prosecutrix to take her to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal for ghost healing, was in pursuance of any criminal conspiracy, inter se, the three appellants. It follows that the prosecution had not proved on record the requisite meeting of minds, inter se, the three appellants for the commission of any offence, essential to attract liability under Section 120B of IPC.
92. In the premise, we hold that the prosecution had failed to prove the commission of offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, but the learned Trial Court fell in error in holding that the said offence had also been proved. Accordingly, it is held that prosecution had failed to prove commission of offence under Section 120B by the appellants. Though the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, it did not award them any punishment for the same.
93. We are of the view that defence is right in contending that the offence under Section 376D IPC has not been proved. It has been held above that offence under Section 120B IPC had not been proved in the case. There is not even any allegation that more than one person had committed the offence of rape, let alone reliable evidence on record to prove the same. In our opinion, learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence gang rape falling under Section 376D IPC. Thus he ought to be acquitted of the said charge. However, on the proved facts of the case it stands established that the appellant had, inter alia, committed the offence of rape. We, therefore, convict him for the lesser/minor offence under Section 376 of IPC.
94. It follows that Sanchita @ Shilpi and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra, appellants cannot be held vicariously liable for the offences (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (88 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] individually and actually committed by appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal. Consequently, the conviction of appellants Sanchita @ Shilpi and Sharad Chandra @ Sharat Chandra and the sentence for the offences under Section 370(4) read with Section 120B IPC and Section 376D IPC and Sections 5(g)/6 and 7/8 of POCSO Act are liable to be set aside.
95. It also follows that the conviction of appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal for offence under Section 120B IPC is also liable to set aside.
96. As an upshot of above discussion, the impugned judgment is modified as stated here in after.
CONCLUSION/SENTENCING
97. Appellant/convict Asha Ram 97.1. We have given our thought to the learned trial court's well- reasoned order denying leniency to the appellant and find ourselves in full agreement with it. The appellant was 73 at the time. He is now 86. He thus stands before us bent by age and burdened by ailment, imploring a fresh look at his plea for leniency. We have considered his plea and applied our mind. We are unable to grant any indulgence, since in the shadow of his frailty cannot justify ignoring the victim's voice. Quiet. Devastating. Irrefutable. To ignore it would be to shake society's faith in the criminal justice system, and send wrong a message no court must ever send, least of all when the perpetrator hid behind the cloak of a self- styled godman.
97.2. Aside above, victim's voice too demands to be heard. She does not come to this Court seeking sympathy but justice. She comes bearing an inconvenient truth: that for the Appellant, imprisonment is only physical. His confinement has walls. Her sentence has none of these. No warrant (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (89 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] was ever issued for it. No court ever pronounced it. Yet, it was imposed upon her the moment this godman chose violation of law and morality over his vows. The sentence served upon her soul is lifelong, written not in ink, but in indelible anguish. It knows no remission, no parole, no appellate remedy. For, a rape victim does not merely carry a wound. She carries an erasure, of her dignity, of her identity, of the self she was before the moment which not only completely destroyed, but cleaved her life into a before and an after. The violation does not end when the act ends. It reverberates, through every moment of silence, every crowded room, every ordinary day made unbearable by the indelible memory of it.
97.3. In this backdrop, adverting to the sentencing, as noticed earlier, appellant was also convicted for offence under Section 354A and 509 of IPC, Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 (for short POCSO Act) but, in light of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, no sentence for those offences, and rightly so, was awarded by the learned trial court.
98. In totality of circumstances, qua appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal it is ordered as under:
(i) His convictions for offences under Sections 120-B, 34 and 376-D IPC, Sections 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act are set aside and he is acquitted of these offences;
(ii) His conviction for offences under Section 370(4), 342, 509, 506, 354A and 376(2)(f) Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of JJ (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act are upheld.
(iii) He is also convicted for offences under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act;
99. As per Section 42 of POCSO Act, for offences under Sections 354A, 509 and 376 of IPC and Sections 3/4 and 7/8 of POCSO Act, no separate (Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM) (Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:26201-DB] (90 of 90) [CRLAD-123/2018] punishment is needed as greater punishment provided under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC is sufficient.
100. Punishments under Section 342, 370(4) and 506 IPC are upheld.
101. Punishment of greater degree under Section 376(2)(f), ibid, i.e., life imprisonment which shall be for the remainder of his natural life along with the fine as accorded by the learned trial court to Asha Ram is also thus upheld, without any other separate sentence/punishment for the other offences i.e. Sections 354A, 509, 376 of IPC and Sections 3/4 and 7/8 of POCSO Act though held guilty, as above. He is currently stated to be on interim bail. In view of his conviction and sentencing, bail granted to appellant Asha Ram @ Ashumal is cancelled. His bail bonds are forfeited and he is directed to surrender. Warrant for his arrest be also issued forthwith, he be taken into custody and sent to jail for undergoing the sentence.
102. Appellants Shilpi @Sanchita & Sharad Chander @ Sharat Chander The convictions of appellants Shilpi @ Sanchita and Sharad Chander @ Sharat Chander for offences under Section 370(4) read with Section 120- B IPC and Section 376-D IPC and under Section 5(g)/6 and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 (for short POCSO Act), as recorded and sentence awarded for the same by the learned trial court, are set aside and they are acquitted of the same.
103. The three appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
K.P. Singh Dewasi/-
(Uploaded on 27/05/2026 at 05:22:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 10:56:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)