‘Western Live-In Culture Is Leading to Criminal Cases’: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction

The Allahabad High Court recently overturned the conviction of a man in a rape case, after finding that the prosecutrix was an adult and that the relationship between the parties was consensual.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra remarked that the case illustrated an increasing tendency among young people to live together without solemnising marriage, influenced by Western ideas and the concept of live-in relationships.

Court noted that when such relationships fail, criminal cases are often lodged, and with laws largely operating in favour of women, men end up being convicted under provisions that were enacted at a time when the concept of live-in relationships did not exist.

Court allowed one Chandresh’s (the appellant) criminal appeal and quashed the judgment dated 6 March 2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), which had convicted him under sections 323, 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The case originated from an FIR lodged by the victim’s mother, alleging that on 22 February 2021, the appellant enticed away her daughter on the promise of marriage and took her to Bengaluru. It was alleged that the appellant had physical relations with the victim, resulting in pregnancy, and later abandoned her. The victim returned to her parental home on 6 August 2021, after which the complaint was made.

During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the informant, the victim, medical officers, school authorities, and police officials. The trial court relied on the prosecution’s assertion that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and concluded that the offences under the IPC, POCSO Act, and the SC/ST Act were established.

However, the high court found serious infirmities in this approach. The bench noted that the FIR itself mentioned the victim’s age as about 18½ years, and that the claim of her being 17 years old surfaced later during proceedings. The school record produced to establish age was based solely on information provided by the guardian at the time of admission, without any supporting documentary proof.

Importantly, court relied on medical and ossification evidence, including a report from the Chief Medical Officer, which assessed the victim’s age to be around 20 years in August 2021. Applying Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, and section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the bench held that the trial court erred in ignoring reliable medical evidence while treating the victim as a minor.

On the issue of consent, the high court placed emphasis on the victim’s own testimony. It noted that she admitted leaving her house voluntarily, travelling with the appellant by government bus and train, encountering several people and police personnel along the way, and yet not raising any alarm. Court also took note of the fact that she lived with the appellant for nearly six months before returning.

“In such circumstances, she cannot be said to have been forcibly abducted or compelled into marriage,” the bench observed, holding that the convictions under sections 363 and 366 IPC were unsustainable. Once the victim was found to be a major, the application of section 6 of the POCSO Act and the conviction for rape under section 376 IPC were also held to be legally untenable.

Court further set aside the conviction under section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, noting that the provision is attracted only when the accused is punished with imprisonment of ten years or more for an underlying offence, which was not independently made out in the present case. The conviction under section 323 IPC was also quashed, as the allegation of pushing the victim was attributed to the appellant’s family members and not to him.

Allowing the appeal, the bench ordered that the appellant, who was in jail, be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and directed the trial court record to be returned.

Case Title: Chandresh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Judgment Date: January 8, 2026

Bench: Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra