Mere allegation of relationship and presence without specific overt acts or criminal intent cannot sustain conviction for abduction or conspiracy.

The informant (P.W.2) alleged that while returning from Gujarat on 19.02.2003, co-accused Nagendra Yadav persuaded him and his family to stay at his residence in Ara. The informant claimed he was drugged and rendered unconscious by co-accused Ram Ayodhya, during which time his wife (P.W.5), son (P.W.1), and Rs. 90,000 were taken.

The appellant, Harendra Yadav (Nagendra’s brother), was implicated under Sections 366 and 120B of the IPC. The Trial Court convicted the appellant on 18.04.2013, sentencing him to 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this on the grounds of lack of evidence and the victim's own testimony denying the abduction.

1. Whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of "abduction" and criminal intent under Section 366 of the IPC against the appellant?

2. Whether there was sufficient evidence of a meeting of minds to sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC?

The Court applied Section 366 IPC (Kidnapping/Abducting a woman to compel marriage/illicit intercourse) and Section 120B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy).

It relied on Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra (2018) and Mohd. Yousuff v. State of Karnataka (2021), establishing that "abduction" requires the use of force or deceitful means. For a conviction under Section 366, the prosecution must prove a specific criminal intent (compulsion of marriage or illicit intercourse); mere proof of moving a person from one place to another is insufficient.

The Court observed that the primary evidence was the testimony of the son (P.W.1) and the informant (P.W.2), but found no specific overt act attributed to the appellant.

Crucially, the alleged victim (P.W.5) turned hostile, stating she was never married to the informant, was not forcibly abducted, and claimed her 164 Cr.P.C. statement was given under police pressure.

Furthermore, five other prosecution witnesses (P.W.3, 4, 6, 7, 8) were declared hostile. The Court reasoned that mere relationship with the main accused (being his brother) or presence at the scene does not prove a "prior meeting of minds" or "common intention" necessary for conspiracy under Section 120B.

There was no evidence that the appellant induced or deceived the victim with the specific intent of marriage or illicit intercourse required by Section 366.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction dated 18.04.2013 and order of sentence dated 20.04.2013 were quashed and set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The Court ordered the appellant’s discharge from bail bonds and the refund of any fines paid.