Allahabad HC Acquits Five In Abduction-Rape Case, Saying Adult Woman’s Three-Day Stay Meant Consent Could Not Be Ruled Out

The appeals arose from a common judgment convicting the accused in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 2002 under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the victim was abducted during the night of 26–27 December 2000 and that Raju and Mahesh raped her.

The victim was recovered on 30 December 2000 with Raju and Rishipal.

Medical and radiological evidence placed her age above 19 years; the medical examination recorded no bodily injuries and an old torn hymen.

During the appeals, Mahendra Singh and Raju died, and proceedings against them abated; the appeals continued against five surviving appellants.

The surviving appellants challenged the convictions, disputing the prosecution evidence and asserting that the victim was a consenting adult.

Section 375 IPC distinguishes an act against a woman’s will from one without her consent; consent must be assessed in light of the circumstances and the evidence.

The court also relied on the principle that a conviction for rape may rest on the prosecutrix’s sole testimony where that testimony inspires the court’s confidence.

It further referred to Rajak Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (9) SCC 248, for the proposition that the possibility of consent may be considered where the prosecutrix’s conduct and circumstances do not support the allegation of coercion.

The charges in this case arose under Sections 366 and 376 IPC; the court also directed compliance with Section 437A CrPC.

The High Court considered the victim to be an adult and found material inconsistencies in her account, including her descriptions of becoming unconscious, identifying the accused, and being transported.

It noted the absence of injuries, the failure to examine other persons named as eyewitnesses, and the lack of a prompt FIR despite the alleged eyewitnesses’ knowledge of the incident.

The court also relied on its view that the victim left home at night without informing her family, remained with the accused for three days without seeking help, and was recovered with two accused at a public crossing.

Taken together, it concluded that the prosecution evidence did not reliably establish force or absence of consent and that the trial court’s findings were perverse.

Their bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged, subject to compliance with Section 437A CrPC; the trial court record was ordered to be returned for necessary compliance.