Victim Forcibly Kidnapped; Accused Attempted Rape By Undressing Her: Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction In Teen Abduction Case

The Criminal Appeal before the High Court was filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case registered under Section 363, 366, 376, 511, 354 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Single Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar said, “Adverting to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that it has been proved by the prosecution that the victim of the crime was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with intention to marry and intercourse with her. He with the said motive kept her at the residence of his relative for about 20 days, where he not only outraged the modesty of the victim but also attempted rape by undressing her. However, he could not commit intercourse on account of her protest. The victim has stated that the appellant had done bad work with her.”

Advocate B.S. Patel represented the Appellant while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A written complaint was given by the complainant stating that her 16-year-old daughter had been missing since August 10, 2004. As per the complainant, she had come to know from reliable sources that Pappu @ Bhuri son of Motilal Kashyap of her Mohalla abducted her by alluring and he was also missing. A case came to be registered, and the victim was recovered from the custody of the appellant. Thereafter, the custody of the girl was given to her natural guardian i.e. her mother and the accused was arrested. A statement of the victim, under Section 164 CrPC, was recorded before the Magistrate.

The charge under Sections 363,366,354, and 376, 511 of the IPC was framed against the appellant. The appellant was thus convicted and awarded a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that Section 363 IPC provides punishment for kidnapping and Section 366 IPC provides kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her marriage, etc. Section 376 provides the punishment for rape and Section 354 provides assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. Section 511 IPC provides punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment. “Thus, where a person attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code, he can be punished for a term which may extend to one half of the imprisonment provided for the offence or with fine or both”, it observed.

The Bench further noted that the victim had stated that the appellant had done bad work with her. The victim reiterated and supported the statement given under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate in her evidence during the trial. Nothing could be extracted from her in cross-examination, which may create any doubt on her version or about the veracity of her evidence.

“The appellant also tried to establish prior relationship with the victim by producing certain letters, which have been denied to be written by the victim by her in evidence and no cogent material could be placed on record to prove the same. The delay in lodging the FIR has properly been explained in the FIR itself and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the delay is immaterial in such cases, particularly when the prosecution has proved its case”, it said.

Moreover, the plea of implication of the applicant on the ground of enmity could not be proved by the appellant, and no evidence could be adduced to prove any enmity. Thus, the Bench dismissed the appeal and held that the appellant had rightly been convicted and punished under Sections 363, 366, 376, 511 and 354 of the IPC.

Cause Title: Pradeep Kumar @ Pappu @ Bhuriya v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:36985)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates B.S. Patel, Ashutosh Singh (Amicus)

Respondent: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order