Allahabad High Court: The Allahabad High Court has set aside a life imprisonment sentence in a criminal case, while also making broader observations on changing social patterns among young adults. The court noted that the growing influence of Western lifestyles and the increasing acceptance of live-in relationships have contributed to more couples choosing to live together without marriage, often resulting in criminal litigation when such relationships end.
While delivering its judgment, the High Court remarked that evolving social norms have altered how young people approach personal relationships. According to the bench, these shifts have led to a rise in disputes reaching the criminal justice system, particularly after consensual relationships deteriorate. The court stressed the need for careful judicial scrutiny in such cases to prevent misuse of criminal law.
The observations were made by a bench comprising Justices Siddharth and Prashant Mishra-I while allowing an appeal filed by Chandresh. The appeal challenged a March 2024 judgment of a Special Judge (POCSO Act) in Maharajganj, which had convicted Chandresh and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The trial court had found him guilty under multiple provisions, including Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping and kidnapping for marriage, Section 323 for voluntarily causing hurt, Section 6 of the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.
According to the prosecution, Chandresh had allegedly taken the complainant’s daughter, who was described as a minor, from her home under the promise of marriage. It was claimed that he later established physical relations with her while staying in Bangalore. Based on these allegations, the trial court concluded that serious offences had been made out and imposed a life sentence.
A central issue before the High Court was the age of the woman involved. After examining the evidence, the bench concluded that she was not a minor at the relevant time. The court noted that the ossification test report indicated her age to be approximately 20 years. It also observed that the trial court had failed to properly evaluate this medical evidence.
In addition, the judges pointed out shortcomings in the school records produced by the prosecution. The documents, the court said, were not prepared or proved in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Rules, reducing their reliability for determining age.
The High Court also highlighted inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant, who was the woman’s mother and examined as a key prosecution witness. In the first information report, the mother herself had stated her daughter’s age as around 18 and a half years, which did not support the claim that she was a minor.
The conduct and testimony of the woman were also considered significant. In her statement, she admitted that she had voluntarily left home and travelled with the appellant by public transport to Gorakhpur and later to Bangalore.
The bench noted that during the journey, which involved buses and trains, the woman did not raise any alarm or objection. The court further observed that she lived with the appellant for nearly six months in a populated area of Bangalore and that their physical relationship was consensual. It was only after the appellant brought her back and left her at Shikarpur Crossing on August 6, 2021, that she contacted her family.
In light of these facts, the High Court held that the convictions under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC were legally unsustainable, as the woman was an adult who had accompanied the appellant of her own free will. The court also ruled that once her age was established as above 18 years, the application of the POCSO Act was clearly erroneous.
Similarly, the conviction for rape under Section 376 of the IPC was found to be unjustified, given the existence of a prolonged consensual relationship. The court further set aside the conviction under Section 323, noting that the alleged act of pushing was attributed to the appellant’s family members and not to the appellant himself.
