376 IPC | Failure Of Major Victim To Raise Alarm While Moving Freely In Public Vitiates Abduction And Rape Charges: Allahabad High Court

"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." Allahabad High Court has held that where an adult prosecutrix leaves her residence during the night, stays with the accused for multiple days, and traverses public thoroughfares without raising an outcry or seeking help, the possibility of voluntary consent cannot be ruled out, disentitling the prosecution from securing a conviction under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Setting aside the conviction of five surviving appellants, Justice Abdul Shahid, in a judgment delivered on October 30, 2026, observed that a conviction for rape cannot rest on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix when her narrative lacks credibility, contains glaring contradictions, and displays voluntary conduct.

The dispute arose out of an incident alleged to have taken place on the night of December 26/27, 2000, where the complainant alleged that his niece was abducted at gunpoint from her house at 2:00 AM by seven accused persons and held captive in a village for three days. Following her recovery by the police from a public crossing alongside two accused on December 30, 2000, charges were framed under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC, culminating in a conviction by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh on January 15, 2004. During the pendency of the appellate proceedings before the High Court, prime accused Raju and co-accused Mahendra Singh passed away, causing the appeal to abate against them.

Whether the inconsistent and uncorroborated testimony of a major victim can form the sole basis of conviction under Sections 366 and 376 IPC in the absence of any medical injury or sign of resistance.

Whether the conduct of a major prosecutrix in accompanying the accused through public places and thoroughfares without raising an alarm establishes consent, thereby negating the offences of abduction and rape.

Medical evidence and ossification report conclusively established that the prosecutrix was an adult capable of understanding her actions

Scrutinizing the medical evidence, the High Court noted that both the ossification test and the school certificate verified the age of the prosecutrix to be above nineteen years at the time of the alleged incident. The Court highlighted that the medical examination conducted immediately upon her recovery revealed no marks of violence, struggle, or injury on her person, internally or externally.

The Court observed that the medical officer found no recent bodily trauma, and the hymenal tear was characterized as an old tear, which completely failed to corroborate any allegations of forceful sexual assault by two men.

Contradictions regarding the alleged abduction and captivity rendered the prosecution narrative inherently improbable

Addressing the allegations of abduction, the bench noted glaring discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecutrix, who initially claimed she was rendered unconscious with a country-made pistol and a stupefying substance, but simultaneously claimed to have observed her captors loading her into a commercial vehicle.

The Court held that such an embellished narrative appeared scripted and lacked ring of truth, observing that the presence of multiple family members at the scene without any contemporaneous attempt to rescue the victim or file a prompt complaint severely undermined the credibility of the prosecution case.

Failure to raise an outcry on public thoroughfares indicates conscious and voluntary accompaniment

The bench laid significant emphasis on the prosecutrix's conduct following the alleged abduction, noting that she claimed to have stayed in a house for three days and subsequently walked a distance of five to six kilometers on foot to a public crossing.

The Court observed that during this entire journey on a public thoroughfare and while waiting for transport at a crowded intersection, the prosecutrix never raised an alarm, shouted for help, or exhibited signs of confinement, which strongly points toward her being a consenting party.

Sole testimony of prosecutrix must inspire judicial confidence to sustain conviction under Section 376 IPC

Invoking the Supreme Court precedent in Paramjit Singh Bedi v. State of Punjab, the High Court reiterated that while conviction can technically rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix, such testimony must necessarily be of sterling quality and inspire absolute confidence in the judicial mind.

The bench further referenced the Apex Court rulings in Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala and Rajak Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, underscoring that where an adult woman moves freely in the company of the accused over multiple days without registering any protest, the essential ingredient of lack of consent required under Section 375 IPC cannot be presumed.

Trial court's findings were perverse and contrary to the established record of evidence

The High Court observed that the trial court committed a manifest error by ignoring the prolonged animosity between the families, the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the deliberate non-examination of material independent witnesses cited in the complaint.

Finding that the entire matrix of facts pointed to voluntary association and mutual consent rather than forcible abduction or sexual assault, the Court held that the conviction recorded by the trial court was wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law.

Consequently, the High Court allowed both criminal appeals, set aside the conviction and sentences recorded under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, and acquitted all surviving appellants of all charges, directing their bail bonds to be cancelled and sureties discharged.

Date of Decision: October 30, 2026