Absence of Physical Injuries and Resistance Renders Allegations of Kidnapping and Non-Consensual Sex Legally Improbable

The informant (P.W. 9) alleged that on November 2, 2012, his 14-year-old daughter (P.W. 6) was kidnapped by the appellant on a motorcycle while on her way to coaching classes

The victim alleged that she was taken to Darbhanga at gunpoint, confined in a room, drugged, and subsequently raped

The police recovered the victim and the appellant at Khajauli Railway Station six days later

The Trial Court (Madhubani) convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged this conviction, arguing that the victim was a consenting party and the allegations were improbable due to prior enmity

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charges of kidnapping and rape under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt, given the victim's conduct and medical evidence

2. Whether the testimony of the victim (P.W. 6) regarding the use of force and lack of consent was credible and supported by the circumstances

The court applied Section 363 (Punishment for kidnapping) and Section 376 (Punishment for sexual assault) of the Indian Penal Code

the evidentiary standard required for a conviction based on the prosecutrix's testimony, balanced against the medical evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.

the principle that a conviction cannot stand if the prosecution's narrative is "highly unbelievable and improbable" or if the victim appears to be a "consenting party"

The High Court found the prosecution's narrative highly improbable, noting that it was physically unlikely for a motorcyclist to drive and hold a revolver against a pillion rider for a two-hour journey without the victim raising an alarm at public junctions

The court observed that the victim remained with the appellant for 5-6 days, during which she traveled by motorcycle and train, yet failed to seek help despite ample opportunity

Crucially, the medical examiner (P.W. 8) found no internal or external injuries, no spermatozoa, and no medical evidence of rape

The court further noted the admitted "inimical terms" between the parties, suggesting the possibility of false implication

The discrepancies in the victim's testimony—such as waiting by an unlocked door and not resisting during train travel—led the court to conclude she was likely a consenting party

The Patna High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction dated January 12, 2016, and the order of sentence dated January 25, 2016, and acquitted the appellant of all charges