The Allahabad High Court overturned a wrongful conviction where a man was punished under rape and POCSO laws after a failed live-in relationship. The trial court had ignored key evidence, voluntary conduct, and clear consent of woman. The case exposes how easily a man’s life can collapse when protective laws are blindly applied.
Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has set aside a serious criminal conviction where a man was sentenced to long imprisonment under kidnapping, rape, POCSO and SC/ST laws.
The appeal challenged the judgment passed by the Special POCSO Court in Maharajganj. After carefully examining the evidence, medical reports, age proof and conduct of the parties, the High Court found that the trial court had ignored important facts and wrongly convicted the man.
The prosecution story claimed that the accused had taken away the girl on the promise of marriage and later abandoned her. The mother alleged that her daughter was a minor and that she was sexually exploited.
However, when the girl gave her statement in court, she admitted that she left her home on her own free will. She travelled in government bus and train, crossed many public places, met many people, yet never raised any alarm or asked for help.
She stayed with the accused in Bangalore for around six months in a residential locality and returned voluntarily. This behaviour clearly showed that there was no kidnapping, force or illegal confinement.
The most important issue before the Court was the age of the girl. The trial court relied mainly on school records which had no supporting documents. The headmaster admitted that the date of birth was written only on the basis of what the guardian told and no documentary proof was submitted at the time of admission.
On the other hand, medical examination and ossification test showed that the girl was about 20 years old. Even in the FIR, her age was first mentioned as around 18½ years and later changed during the case.
The High Court observed that the trial court ignored medical evidence and legal rules for determining age. It held that the girl was a major at the relevant time.
Once the Court concluded that the woman was a major and had willingly lived with the accused, all serious criminal charges collapsed automatically. The Court held that kidnapping and abduction charges cannot stand when a major woman leaves on her own choice.
POCSO provisions also cannot apply when the woman is not a minor. The rape charge was also rejected because the relationship was clearly consensual and continued for months without any complaint.
The SC/ST Act charge was also quashed because that section applies only when the main offence carries punishment of ten years or more, which was no longer valid after the main charges were set aside. Even the minor assault allegation failed because there was no clear role assigned to the accused for that incident.
While delivering the judgment, the Court made a strong observation on changing social behaviour and misuse of criminal law. The Court clearly stated:
“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.”
This remark highlights a serious reality — when relationships break down, criminal law is often used as a pressure tool instead of resolving disputes legally and fairly.
The High Court finally allowed the appeal, cancelled the conviction and directed that the accused be released immediately if he was not wanted in any other case.
The judgment reinforces that adult consent must be respected, age determination must be scientific and lawful, and criminal laws meant for protection must not become tools of harassment. It sends a strong message that courts must carefully examine facts instead of blindly accepting allegations arising from broken personal relationships.
Explanatory Table – Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How It Applied in Court |
| IPC 363 | Kidnapping from guardian | Quashed as woman was major and left willingly |
| IPC 366 | Abduction for marriage/sex | No force proved, conviction set aside |
| IPC 376 | Rape | Consensual adult relationship, charge failed |
| IPC 323 | Causing hurt | No direct role of accused, set aside |
| POCSO 6 | Sexual offence on minor | Victim not minor, POCSO not applicable |
| SC/ST 3(2)(V) | Enhanced punishment | Main offences failed, section not applicable |
| JJ Act 94(2) | Age determination rules | Trial court ignored proper age procedure |
| JJ Rules 12 | Valid age proof priority | School record unreliable, rejected |
Case Details
- Case Title: Chandresh vs State of U.P. And 3 Others
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3529 of 2024
- Bench: Hon’ble Siddharth, J. & Hon’ble Prashant Mishra-I, J.
- Dates:
- Judgment Reserved On: 17.12.2025
- Judgment Delivered On: 08.01.2026
Counsels
- For Appellant:
- Dinesh Kumar Pandey
- Manu Sharma
- Randhir Jain
- Sandeep Kumar Keshari
- For Respondent (State): Ashish Pandey, G.A.
Key Takeaways
- A consensual live-in relationship between adults cannot be twisted into kidnapping, rape or POCSO just because the relationship later failed. Courts must protect personal choice and consent.
- Wrong age manipulation is a common tactic in false cases. Medical and legal age proof must prevail over weak school entries created without documents.
- When a woman travels freely, lives openly for months, and never raises alarm, criminal intent cannot be presumed later to trap a man.
- SC/ST and protective laws cannot be mechanically added to increase pressure and punishment when the core offence itself is not legally proved.
- This judgment openly exposes how outdated gender-biased laws are being weaponised after relationship breakdowns, leading to innocent men losing years of freedom, dignity and career.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.