Ramesh vs State Of U.P. on 15 April, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:25995
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 817 of 2012   
 
   Ramesh    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Dheerendra Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Govt. Advocate   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 14
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Dheerendra Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Mohd. Asif Khan, the learned AGA-I for the State.

2. By means of the instant appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 01.05.2012 passed by the Additional Session Judge X-Cader, Unnao in Session Trial No.664 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No.1033 of 2010 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC registered at Police Station- Makhi, District- Unnao, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 366 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay Rs.5,000/- fine. In case of failure to pay fine, the appellant would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 01.08.2010, alleging that the appellant had enticed away the informant?s minor daughter on 27.07.2010. Upon an application submitted by the informant to the police, the daughter had been recovered and handed over to her, but the victim?s medical examination had not been conducted. The informant requested that the victim?s medical examination be carried out.

4. The medical examination of the victim was conducted on 02.08.2010. No injuries were found on any part of her body. The hymen was old torn, and healed. The pathological examination report revealed no spermatozoa (either alive or dead). As per the ossification test report, all the joints were fused and age of the victim was opined to be more than 19 years.

5. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that she was in a relation ship with the appellant for the past one year. The appellant used to say that he would take her to Delhi and marry her. Under his influence, she had come out of the village at about 07:00 PM on 27.07.2010 under pretext of attending the call of nature. The appellant was present there. Both of them had gone to Nawabganj. The appellant had taken a room on rent and he forcibly made physical relations with her against her wish, several times during the days and nights. She somehow escaped on 30.07.2010 and reached home.

6. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she had ran away with the appellant on 27.07.2010, she knew him for the past two years. On the date of the incident, she had gone with her younger sister to attend the call of nature. The appellant and two other persons had caught hold of her and turned her younger sister away after beating her. She alleged that the appellant had taken her to Darbari Kheda and that the appellant had committed the misdeed against her. She stated that she did not understand the meaning of ?misdeed?. While she was going with the appellant on a tempo, the police caught them. She also stated that she did not love the appellant and she wanted to live with her Mausi.

7. The allegation of involvement of two other persons could not be established during investigation and a charge-sheet was submitted only against the appellant Ramesh for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C.

8. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC on 21.02.2011.

9. The victim was examined by the trial Court as PW-1. Although she reiterated the FIR version in her examination-in-chief, during cross-examination, she stated that she knew the appellant who is related to her. On the date of the incident she had gone to attend the call of nature along with her cousin aged 10 years. The appellant Ramesh came there alongwith Pandit and Parmeshwar and they forcibly took her away. She was carrying a lota which was taken away by her cousin. She stated that the appellant had attempted to take a room on rent but several persons declined the request. She stated that she had stayed at Darbari Kheda for three days and two nights. During this period, she used to go to the fields to attend the call of nature. She did not know as to whether any basic household goods were there in the room in which she was staying or not. Even when she used to go to the fields to attend the call of nature, she did not raise her voice. She admitted that she had given a statement before the Magistrate that she knew the appellant for the past two years. However, before the trial Court she had stated that she had never met the appellant and she had seen him for the first time at the time of the incident.

10. PW-2 was the Doctor who had medically examined the victim and had proved the medico-legal examination report. He stated that as per the X-ray report, all the joints were fused and age of the victim was 19 years. He further stated that there was no injury on any part of the victim?s body, no injury marks can be observed if intercourse is made repetitively but there would be swelling and marks of injury on the private part of the body, if intercourse is made forcibly for 2-3 days or 2-3 times. He stated that sperms remain alive for 42 hours and dead sperms are visible for 72 hours.

11. PW-3 was the Radiologist, who had conducted the X-Ray examination and had prepared the X-ray report. He stated that as per the X-ray report, age of the victim was assessed to be 19 years but it could be either 17 years or 21 years also.

12. PW-4 was a police constable and PW-5 was the Investigating Officer.

13. It is relevant to note that mother of the victim, who was the complainant and her cousin who was allegedly accompanying her at the time of the incident, have not been produced as prosecution witnesses.

14. The trial Court noted the discrepancies between the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement recorded by the Court and found that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was well acquainted with the appellant Ramesh, she was having a love affair with him for the past two years since before the incident and due to this loving relation, she had gone out of her home and out of the village under a pre-conceived plan. The appellant was present there. He took the victim to Darbari Kheda, kept her in a room and made physical relations with her. The victim had gone with the appellant under influence of the inducement made by him to marry her and accepting him to be her future husband. She consensually made physical relations with him.

15. The trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the age of the victim by producing the admission register of the school, parivar register or voter list and by adducing evidence of her father. In medical examination, the age of the victim was opined to be 19 years but even a major person can be abducted. The victim had stated that the appellant had promised him to marry her and, therefore, she consensually made physical relations with him. The trial Court held that the offences under Section 363 and 376 IPC are not made out but Section 366 IPC is made out.

16. Section 366 IPC provides as follows: -

?366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.?Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.?

17. Abduction is defined in Section 362 IPC as follows: -

?362. Abduction.?Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.?

18. In Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra: (2018) 6 SCC 664, the Hon?ble Supreme Court held that: -

?16. In order to constitute the offence of ?abduction?, a person must be carried off illegally by force or deception, that is, to compel a person by force or deceitful means to induce to go from one place to another. The intention of the accused is the basis and the gravamen of an offence under this section. The volition, the intention and the conduct of the accused determine the offence; they can only bear upon the intent with which the accused kidnapped or abducted the woman, and the intent of the accused is the vital question for determination in each case. Once the necessary intent of the accused is established, the offence is complete, whether or not the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose, and whether or not the woman consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse.

17. Apart from this, to constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, that such abduction took place with the intent that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction. Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal section. So far as charge under Section 366 IPC is concerned, mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC.?

(Emphasis added)

19. For making out an offence punishable under Section 366 IPC, the prosecution had to establish that the appellant, by deceitful means, induced the victim to leave her home with the intent to compel her to marry any person against her will or to force her into illicit intercourse

20. In the present case, the trial Court has held that the victim had stated that the appellant had assured to marry her and she had gone with him. However, neither the victim had stated that the appellant had deceitfully promised to marry her and he had deceitfully taken her away, nor has the trial Court recorded a satisfaction that the intention of the appellant, at the time of taking the victim with him, was to deceive her. The physical relation made between the appellant and the victim have been held to be consensual and the victim or the State have not challenged this finding.

21. In absence of a finding regarding deceitful intention of the appellant having been recorded, the appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 366 IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant for committing the offence under Section 366 IPC is not sustainable in law.

22. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.05.2012 passed by the Additional Session Judge X-Cader, Unnao in Session Trial No.664 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No.1033 of 2010 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC registered at Police Station- Makhi, District- Unnao, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay Rs.5,000/- fine and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year in case of failure to pay fine, is set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 366 I.P.C.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

April 15, 2026

-Amit K-