State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Ali Husain

The Leave to Appeal filed under Section 378(3) Criminal Procedure Code(in short Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgement and order dated 5.7.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, court no. 37, Barabanki in session trial no. 2522 of 2023 arising out of case crime no. 282 of 2023, under Sections 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code(in short I.P.C.), police station Kursi, district Barabanki, whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted by the trial court.

¶17

Prosecution story, in brief, is that the PW-1 Sankata Prasad submitted a

¶18

A378D No. 8 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

tehrir to the Kursi police station stating that the complainant Sankata Prasad son of Nekram, is a resident of village Pokhanni, Kursi police station, Barabanki. The complainant's daughter, the victim, aged about 18 years was enticed away by the accused-respondent Ali Hussain alias Munna, son of Iqbal, a resident of village Dautpur, Deva police station, Barabanki on 25.9.2023 at 3 O' clock in the night. The complainant came to know about the same when he searched for her.

¶21

On the basis of the said complaint, the F.I.R. was registered against the accused respondent Ali Hussain alias Munna and investigation was started. The Investigating Officer found sufficient evidence against the accused respondent and submitted the charge-sheet against the accused respondent under Section 366 and 376 I.P.C.

¶22

The charges were framed against accused Ali Hussain alias Munna for the offences under sections 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Sankata Prasad, P.W. 2 Priyanka Sharma, P.W. 3 Sangeeta Devi, P.W,. 4 Dr. Mukta Gupta, P.W. 5 Subinspector Gyanednra Pratap and P.W. 6 Constable Arun Pal. The statement of the accused respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein it was stated that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. He also stated that the victim is major and her family was forcing her to marry with an elderly man for money. He was helping the victim due to which the accused respondent was falsely implicated in this case.

¶23

10.P.W. 1 Sankata Prasad, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that the incident occurred on 25.9.2023 at around 3 O' clock in the night. He deposed that the entire family was asleep after dinner and when he woke up around 3:00 a.m. for bathroom he saw that his daughter was not in bed. She was searched out in the house thoroughly but she was not found. He then woke up everyone and inquired but did not find her. Upon inquiring with the villagers, he came to know that the accused respondent Ali Hussain alias Munna had enticed away his daughter. He further deposed that the accused Ali Hussain had been harassing her on way to school, regarding which he had already made complaint to the concerned police station. He deposed that the application is included in the file as Paper No. A-10, which was marked as Exhibit Ka-1. He further deposed that he identified his signature made on the complaint. The Inspector with regard to the same questioned him and he told him the same thing.

¶24

A378D No. 8 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

PW-2, the victim, in her examination-in-chief deposed that at the time of this incident, she had just completed Class 11. The accused Ali Hussain used to frequently call her and continue to message her even when she blocked his phone number. When she refused to talk to him, he threatened to kill her father and brother. She deposed that when she wanted to tell her father, the accused threatened to kill them. On the night of 25.9.2024 at around 11:00 pm, the accused called her and threatened her to come to his house and when she refused, the accused said he would kill his brother and father in the morning. She further deposed that she went to meet him at the place he had mentioned, from where, the accused forcibly took her to Gonda. The accused kept her in a room, where he raped her. She further deposed that the accused kept telling her to accept Islam otherwise the consequences would be dire. He then brought her to the Deva Sharif shrine, where he continued to pressure upon her to convert to Islam. On the way, she tried to raise an alarm at several places but he kept threatening to kill her, so, out of fear, she couldn't raise an alarm. She further deposed that he kept her at the Deva Shariff for a day and then forcibly took her to his home. The police arrested the accused and also recovered her. The police interrogated her at the police station and a female constable recorded her statement and obtained her signature. The police took her to the hospital where she underwent for a medical examination. After that, she was taken to court where she gave statement before a female officer.

¶27

P.W. 3, Sangeeta Devi, who is mother of the victim, has reiterated the same version as was stated by the P.W. 1.

¶28

P.W. 4 Dr. Mukta Gupta, who conducted the medical examination of the victim, has opined that as per pathological report no sperm either alive or dead was found in the body of the victim. She also deposed that no opinion can be given with regard to physical relationship.

¶29

P.W. 5, Sub-inspector, Gyanednra Pratap, who investigated the matter, has deposed that the report was lodged on 27.9.2023. The accused respondent was arrested on 29.9.2023 at 11:50 a.m. and the victim was also recovered along-with the accused. The statements of the victim were recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the victim was sent for medical examination on 30.9.2023.

¶30

P.W. 6, Constable Arun Pal is the formal witness.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the trial court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused-respondent.

¶32

The Court now proceeds to examine whether the ingredients of Sections

¶33

A378D No. 8 of 2026

¶34

4

¶35

366 and 376 IPC are made out on the facts of the present case. Section 366 IPC contemplates kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her marriage or to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse. The essential element of the offence is that the taking away or enticing must be accompanied by force, compulsion, deceit, or inducement with a criminal intent. Mere accompaniment of a woman by an accused, without proof of compulsion, threat, or deception, does not ipso facto attract Section 366 IPC. Similarly, for an offence under Section 376 IPC, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual act, if any, was committed against the will of the prosecutrix or without her consent.

¶36

From perusal of the statement of the victim, this Court finds that the statement made by the victim that on the way, she tried to raise an alarm at several places but he kept threatening to kill her, so, out of fear, she couldn't raise an alarm is very improbable story as the victim went with the accused on several busy places but never shown any resistance of the accused and the victim appears to be a consenting party. The victim has stated that the accused Ali Hussain used to frequently call her and continue to message her even when she blocked his phone number and when she refused to talk to him, the accused threatened to kill her father and brother but from perusal of the record, this Court does not find that there is any evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that the victim was pressurized in any manner to go with the accused person. Moreover, the complainant who is father of the victim has stated that the accused Ali Hussain used to harass her daughter on way to school, regarding which he already made a complaint to the police and identified the said application in the court but there is no such document on record on the basis of which it can be said that the P.W. 1 had earlier made complaint to the police about harassing the victim. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused-respondent.

¶37

The victim as per the medical and the documents available on record was major at the time of incident and from perusal of her statement she appears to be a consenting party There is sole accused in this case and the medical examination report of the victim does not support the prosecution story as the victim was arrested on 29.9.2023 and she was medically examined on 30.9.2023 but the P.W. 4 who medically examined the victim has opined that no sperm either alive or dead was found on the body of the victim and she also opined that no opinion can be given regarding physical intercourse.

¶38

It is relevant to mention that the victim was a major at the time of the incident. In such circumstances, the law accords primacy to her autonomy and capacity to consent. Where a major woman accompanies a man of her own volition, without evidence of coercion, misrepresentation, or threat of immediate harm, the mere fact of her being taken to a particular place cannot

¶39

A378D No. 8 of 2026

¶40

5

¶41

amount to “abduction” within the meaning of Section 366 IPC. The allegation that she was threatened not to raise an alarm remains unsubstantiated and is not corroborated by any independent evidence. The absence of any contemporaneous resistance, struggle, or immediate complaint to any passerby or authority militates against the prosecution case of forcible taking. With regard to Section 376 IPC, the prosecution has failed to establish that the sexual act, if any, was committed without the consent of the prosecutrix. The medical examination found no alive or dead sperm in the body of the victim and inconclusive conclusion was drawn with respect to the physical relationship. The surrounding circumstances, including her voluntary accompaniment and absence of any immediate grievance, render the prosecution version doubtful. In criminal jurisprudence, suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

¶42

In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and there is no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial court.

¶43

The Leave to Appeal is accordingly dismissed and consequently the Government Appeal is also dismissed.

¶44

(Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶45

January 13, 2026

¶46

kanhaiya

¶47

Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Ali Husain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Ali Husain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonam vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Mata Prasad and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Sudhesh Rawat and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Smt. Gausiya Tarannum (Informant of Fir) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Lko. and Others

Complainant/ Victim of S.T. NO.211 of 2019 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Supriya and Another vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others