Voluntary Conduct of Victim Vitiates Abduction and Rape Charges: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has reinforced the legal sanctity of consent in criminal jurisprudence, ruling that the prolonged stay of a major woman with an accused without raising an alarm effectively nullifies charges of abduction and forceful sexual assault.

In an authoritative verdict, Justice Abdul Shahid acquitted multiple appellants, observing that the victim's failure to seek help at public places and the lack of physical injuries indicated a consensual relationship rather than a criminal conspiracy.

Analysis of Victim's Conduct and Consent

The Court scrutinized the testimony of the victim, who was found to be over 19 years old at the time of the incident based on a medical ossification test. The Bench noted that the victim left her house at 2:00 AM alone and encountered the accused outside, which suggested a prior meeting of minds.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the present case, where the victim is a major. She left her house at 2.00 am in the night alone and at the same time, all the accused persons were also present there. Hence, it could not be ruled out that she was a consenting party. Further, the victim resided with the accused for the next three days and she did not raise any alarm, or voice and further she was recovered at a public place of crossing where she was waiting for vehicle for going to another place."

Failure of Prosecution to Prove Force or Enticement

The prosecution failed to produce several eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR, relying solely on the victim and her uncle. The Bench highlighted that even the victim's father, a police officer, was not produced as a witness. Referring to the precedent in Paramjit Singh Bedi. Vs. State of Punjab ( "2026 INSC 1054": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 8010), the Court reiterated that while a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, such testimony must inspire the absolute confidence of the Court.

The Court further relied on Rajak Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ( "2018 (9) SCC 248": 2018 CaseBase(SC) 238), noting that when a prosecutrix moves freely and meets people during the period of alleged abduction without complaining, the theory of kidnapping fails. The Bench also cited Kaini Rajan Vs. State of Kerala ( "2013 (3) SCC (Crl.) 858": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 472) to emphasize that "against her will" implies active opposition by the woman, which was absent in this case.

The Court has following directions:

"The judgment and order dated 15.1.2004, passed by learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 2002 (State Vs. Mahendra Singh and others), under Section 366, and 376 IPC, Police Station Gabhana, district Aligarh, is hereby set aside. The surviving appellants in both the aforesaid criminal appeal are hereby acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties are discharged subject to compliance of Section 437A of Cr.P.C. as applicable."

Background

The case originated from an incident on the night of December 26/27, 2000, where the victim was allegedly abducted by seven individuals and subsequently raped by two brothers, Raju and Mahesh. The FIR was lodged with a delay on December 28, 2000, by the victim's uncle. The victim was recovered on December 30, 2000, at a public crossing in the company of the accused.

The Trial Court at Aligarh had convicted the appellants under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC in 2004. During the pendency of the appeal, several appellants, including the main accused Raju, passed away. The surviving appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds that the victim was a major and a consenting party, highlighting that the families had a history of enmity and litigation. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, found the trial court's findings "illegal and perverse," leading to the total acquittal of the survivors.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 307 of 2004 and Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2004
Case Title: Smt. Guddi And Others Vs. State of U.P.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): P. Dikshit, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Govt. Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 1356