Isabella Mariam

The Allahabad High Court Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I allowed a criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court, and directed that the accused be released if not wanted in any other case. The case arose from allegations that a young woman left her home on the assurance of marriage, lived with the man for months, became pregnant, and later returned, following which a police complaint was lodged accusing him of offences linked to the relationship. The Court noted a growing trend of live-in relationships among youth and that failed relationships often lead to FIRs, adding that men may be convicted under women-centric laws framed before the live-in concept existed.

The criminal appeal arose from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant by the trial court for offences under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (abduction for marriage), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.

Also Read: High Court Cannot Direct Police To Ensure Section 41A CrPC Compliance While Refusing To Quash FIR; Supreme Court

After investigation, a chargesheet was submitted and charges were framed. The prosecution examined the informant, the victim, medical witnesses, school authorities, and police witnesses. The defence denied the allegations, claimed false implication due to prior enmity, and relied upon medical and age-related evidence to assert that the victim was a major at the relevant time and had accompanied the appellant voluntarily.

Medical evidence included pregnancy-related examination and an ossification test. School records were produced without supporting documentary proof regarding age. The appellant was convicted and sentenced under multiple statutory provisions, which led to the present appeal challenging the appreciation of evidence and legality of the convictions.

The High Court examined the evidence relating to the age of the prosecutrix and the nature of her relationship with the appellant. It recorded that “the trial court has not properly considered the evidence on record while passing the judgment and order of conviction against the appellant.”

With respect to age determination, the Court noted that “the certificate from the school first attended was required” and further recorded that “no documentary evidence of her age was produced at the time of her admission.” The Court also observed that “the trial court has not considered the age certificate… issued by C.M.O. Maharajganj which proves her age to be about 20 years.”

On the conduct of the prosecutrix, the Court recorded that “she left her house willingly” and travelled through public transport without raising alarm. It was further observed that “she lived with the appellant in a locality full of other houses for 6 months.” On this basis, the Court stated that “she can not be said to have been forcibly abducted.”

Regarding the sexual offence charges, the Court observed that "In case the victim was major the conviction of the appellant under Section-6 of the POCSO Act is also unjustified. The conviction under section-376 of I.P.C., is also not proper because the victim was major and had consenting relationship with appellant for six years."

On the SC/ST Act charge, the Court recorded that “the punishment under Section-3(2)(V) … is not independent provision” and therefore the conviction was unsustainable. As to the offence under Section 323 IPC, the Court observed that “the role of pushing… has not been assigned to appellant but to his family members.”

Also Read: MACT | Deceased’s Class 12 Status Alone Cannot Lead To Nil Income, Allahabad High Court Enhances Compensation By Computing Income As Unskilled Labour

The Court further observed: “Before parting, we find that this case is an example of increasing tendency of the youth living together without solemnization of marriage under the influence of western ideas and the concept of live-in. After such relationships fail, F.I.R. is lodged and the laws being in favour of women, the boys/men get convicted relying upon the laws which were made when the concept of live-in was no where in existence.”

The Court concluded that “the Judgment and Order passed by the learned trial court can not be sustained and is hereby set aside. The appellant is in jail, he is directed to be set free, if not wanted in any other case. The criminal appeal is allowed. Office is directed to return the trial court record and notify this judgment to the trial court within two weeks.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate; Manu Sharma, Advocate; Randhir Jain, Advocate; Sandeep Kumar Keshari, Advocate

For the Respondent: Ashish Pandey, Government Advocate

Case Title: Chandresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC:4399-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3529 of 2024
Bench: Justice Siddharth, Justice Prashant Mishra-I