Patna High Court
MALTI DEVIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed and the trial court’s acquittal of the accused is upheld.
Summary
The mother of a 19‑year‑old woman filed a complaint alleging that four accused abducted and gang‑raped her daughter on 7 July 2021. The trial court examined eight prosecution witnesses and several documents, but found the victim and her mother’s statements contradictory and noted that the victim had voluntarily married one of the accused, with a marriage certificate and other evidence confirming her adulthood. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of kidnapping (Sec. 363 IPC), kidnapping for ransom (Sec. 366A IPC) and gang‑rape (Sec. 376D IPC) beyond reasonable doubt and therefore acquitted the accused. On appeal, the High Court re‑examined the evidence, affirmed the trial court’s assessment of credibility, and concluded that there was no basis to disturb the acquittal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved the offences under Sections 363, 366A and 376D of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the statements of the victim and the informant were reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction.
- Whether the evidence of a voluntary marriage and the victim’s adulthood negated the alleged kidnapping and rape.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 161, 164, 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366A, 376D
Subjects
- kidnapping
- gang rape
- acquittal
- appeal
- evidence
- marriage
- IPC
- CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1145 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-153 Year-2021 Thana- DORIGANJ District- Saran
======================================================
XX (Mother of the victim), C/o Sanjay Kumar Singh, R/O Village- Chirand,
P.S.- Doriganj, Dist.- Saran.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Abhishek Kumar, Son of Ratan Saroj, R/O Village- Malviya Nagar, P.S.-
Lanka, Dist.- Varanasi.
3. Bittu Kumar @ Satyam Rai, Son of Lalan Gupta, R/O Village- Bhairopur
Nizamat, P.S.- Doriganj, Dist.- Saran.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, Addl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 18-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting
aside the judgment of acquittal dated 01.04.2023 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2022 arising
out of Doriganj P.S. Case No. 153 of 2021. By the impugned
judgment, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
2/17
charges punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376D of the
Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case is based on the written
application of the informant/ appellant (PW-6). In her written
application, she has stated that on 07.07.2021 at 05:00 AM, her
daughter aged 19 years went for a walk. When her daughter did
not return even after a long time, the family members started
looking for her. In course of search, she came to know that the
accused, namely, (1) Abhishek Kumar (respondent no. 2), (2)
Navin Kumar, (3) Bittu Kumar (respondent no. 3) and (4) Rohit
Kumar, had taken away her daughter (hereinafter called as
'victim' or 'Ms.B') by alluring her. The informant has firm belief
that all these accused persons kidnapped her daughter for any
untoward incident.
4. On the basis of this written application, Doriganj P.S.
Case No. 153 of 2021 dated 09.07.2021 was registered under
Sections 363/366(A) of the IPC against accused persons, namely,
(1) Abhishek Kumar (respondent no. 2), (2) Navin Kumar, (3)
Bittu Kumar (respondent no. 3) and (4) Rohit. After investigation
police submitted charghesheet being Chargesheet No. 294 of
2021 dated 18.12.2021 against accused, namely, Abhishek Kumar
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
3/17
(respondent no. 2) and Bittu Kumar (respondent no. 3) under
Section 363, 366(A) IPC keeping investigation pending against
accused Navin Kumar and Rohiti Kumar Dilip Kumar.
5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated
23.12.2021 took cognizance of the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 366(A) IPC against respondent nos. 2 and 3.
6. Charges were read over and explained to respondent
nos. 2 and 3 in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated 03.03.2022,
charges were framed against respondent nos. 2 and 3 under
Sections 363/34, 366(A)/34 and 376(D) IPC.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eight witnesses and exhibited several documentary evidences.
The names of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are being
shown hereunder in a tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Shailesh Kumar Singh
PW-2 Bhanu Pratap Singh
PW-3 Manoranjan Kumar Singh
PW-4 Father of the Victim
PW-5 Victim
PW-6 Mother of the Victim/ Informant
PW-7 John Marandi
PW-8 Dr. Bushra Salim
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
4/17
List of Exhibits on behalf of the Prosecution
Exhibit ‘P-1/PW-5’ 164 CrPC Statement of PW-5
Exhibit ‘P-2/PW-6’ Signature of the Informant (PW-
6) on the written application
Exhibit ‘P-3/PW-7’ Endorsement on the written
application made by the SHO of
Doriganj
Exhibit ‘P-4/PW-7’ Formal FIR
Exhibit ‘P-5/PW-7’ Chargesheet
Exhibit ‘P-6/PW-8’ Medial Examination Report
8. Thereafter, the statements of respondent nos. 2 and 3
were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. The respondent
no. 2, namely, Abhishek Kumar, in his 313 CrPC statement stated
that the victim (PW-5) and he were in a relationship. They both
have solemnised marriage in Markandey Mahadev Temple.
Lanka Police Station released PW-5 in his favour and in favour of
his family. They also registered their marriage in Varanasi Court.
The respondent no. 3, namely, Bittu Kumar @ Satyam Rai denied
the allegations and pleaded innocence.
9. The defence has also examined several witnesses and
produced documentary evidences which are given hereunder in
tabular form:-
List of Defence Witnesses
DW-1 Jyoti Kumari
DW-2 Ratan Saroj
DW-3 Mahesh Pandey
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
5/17
List of Exhibits on behalf of the Defence
Exhibit A D-31 marriage certificate
Exhibit B D-32 matriculation certificate of
victim
Exhibit C D-33 Aadhar card of victim
Exhibit ‘D-1/DW-1’ Photographs.
to ‘D-27/DW-1’
Exhibit ‘D-28/DW-1’ Receipt of digital studio
Exhibit ‘D-29/DW-1’ Pen drive
Exhibit ‘D-30/DW-1’ Signature of respondent no.
2 on true copy of
Supurdignama
Exhibit ‘D-34/ DW- Signature of Sajan Giri on
2’ marriage certificate
Exhibit ‘D-35/DW-2’ Signature of witness on
marriage certificate
Exhibit ‘D-36/DW-2’ Photo of respondent no.2 and
the victim on marriage
certificate
Exhibit D-37 Certified copy of order dated
21.12.2021 in CWJC No.
1009 of 2021
Exhibit ‘D-38/DW-1’ Signature of witness on
certificate
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
10. Learned trial court after analysing all the evidences
available on the record found that PW-5 and respondent no. 2
both were in a relationship and they solemnised marriage in the
temple of Sri Markandeya Mahadev at Varanasi on 07.07.2021
and obtained marriage certificate issued by the Priest of this
temple on the same day, Police of Lanka P.S., Varanasi released
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
6/17
PW-5 in favour of Respondent no. 2 and his parents on
08.07.2021.
11. Learned trial court further found that the marriage
certificate has also been issued by the Government of Uttar
Pradesh on 13.07.2021. PW-5 sought police protection against
honour killing because of inter-caste marriage and she also filed
Cr.WJC No. 1009 of 2021, in which respondent no. 2 was named
as husband of PW-5, but later on Cr.WJC no. 1009 of 2021 got
withdrawn by PW-5 under parental pressure. Learned trial court
also found that there are different photographs and video
clippings of their marriage on the record which makes it to
believe it so.
12. Learned trial court after considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case hold that the prosecution has failed to
prove charges under Section 363, 366A and 376D IPC against
respondent nos. 2 and 3 beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts.
Accordingly, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the
charges.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned trial court passed the judgment of acquittal in a mechanical
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
7/17
manner without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the
case and the evidence.
14. It was further submitted that the learned trial court
erred in disbelieving the testimony of the victim (PW-6), who is
reliable and trustworthy and duly corroborated by her statements
recorded under Sections 164 and 161 CrPC. Her deposition has
remained consistent throughout.
15. It was further submitted that the learned trial court
has erred in appreciating that the prosecution has duly established
the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 376D, 363, and
366A IPC against respondent nos. 2 and 3, along with the place
and manner of occurrence.
16. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has
erroneously placed complete reliance on the defence witnesses and
exhibits without verifying their authenticity and without
examining any expert or independent witnesses in support thereof.
The entire defence story put forth by accused Abhishek Kumar
appears to be falsely constructed, on the basis of which the
credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have been
unjustifiably disregarded.
17. It was further submitted that the learned trial court
has failed and overlooked that the statement of the victim and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
8/17
other prosecution witnesses are duly corroborated and consistent
without any major contradictions.
Submissions on behalf of the State
18. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the appeal. It is
submitted that there cannot be a better case of false implication of
a person invoking Section 376D and other allied sections of the
IPC. The evidences available on the record have been duly
examined by the learned trial court. On the face of the
overwhelming materials showing that the victim (PW-5) is major
and she had, on her own will and volition, solemnized marriage on
07.07.2021 in the temple of Markandey Mahadev, which have
been duly proved vide Exhibit ‘D-1/DW-1’ to ‘D-30/DW-1’, the
learned trial court came to a conclusion that the appellant and the
victim both were adult. In the kind of materials present on the
record, the learned trial court has rightly held that the prosecution
had failed to prove the charges under Sections 363, 366A and
376D of IPC beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt.
Consideration
19. We have once again examined the entire evidences
available on the record. According to the informant, who is the
mother of the victim (PW-5), four accused persons forcefully
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
9/17
abducted her daughter on 07.07.2021 by pressing her mouth. She
was told by her daughter that accused persons had committed gang
rape on her. The defence suggested her that her daughter and A-1
had voluntarily solemnized their marriage in the temple of
Markandey Mahadev at Varanasi on 07.07.2021. It was further
suggested to the informant that she herself along with her husband
went to the house of A-1 but her daughter refused to go with her
and she was released in favour of the parents of A-1 by Lanka P.S.
The informant denied the suggestions of the defence.
20. We find that in the trial court, Exhibit ‘D-32’, which
is the original matriculation certificate of the victim (X), and
Exhibit ‘D-33’, which is the original Aadhar card of victim (X),
have been brought on record by the accused persons and these
documents would go to show that the victim (X) was major on the
date of occurrence. Her date of birth as recorded in the
matriculation certificate is 15.02.2002.
21. We have further found that the case of the
prosecution stands falsified on the face of Exhibit ‘D-31’ and ‘D-
36/DW-2’ which are the original certificate of registration of
marriage issued by the Marriage Officer, Government of Uttar
Pradesh and Markandey Mahadev Temple respectively.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
10/17
22. The learned trial court has recorded the vacillating
stand of the informant (PW-6) as well as the victim (PW-5) in their
deposition. It is a matter of record that the informant filed this case
on 09.07.2021 even as she came to know on 07.07.2021 that the
four accused persons forcefully abducted her daughter. The trial
court found that there was overwriting in the handwritten petition
given by PW-6 with respect to the date at the end of the
application.
23. We have further noticed that the victim (PW-5) and
the informant (PW-6) both have categorically stated in their
examination-in-chief that the victim had been forcefully abducted
by putting cloths on her mouth, but their statements to this effect
get contradicted from the contents of the handwritten FIR in which
the informant has stated that the accused persons abducted her
daughter after allurement. The learned trial court has rightly held
that there is a major contradiction as regards the manner of
abduction of PW-5. The testimony of the informant (PW-6) has not
been found wholly reliable and convincing for purpose of proving
the guilt of the accused persons.
24. The learned trial court has found that the father of
the victim, who has been examined as PW-4, is a hearsay witness.
PW-4 expressed ignorance with respect to the whereabouts of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
11/17
original Aadhar card of his daughter or that he went to Lanka P.S.
on 08.07.2021 or that there was any affair between the victim and
A-1 or that they got married and the marriage was solemnized at
Markandey Mahadev Temple, Varanasi and it was registered
before the Marriage Registrar at Varanasi. PW-4 also suppressed
filing of Criminal Writ application before the Hon’ble High Court.
After finding that the father of the victim was showing ignorance
despite there being overwhelming materials on the record brought
by the evidence, the learned trial court took a view that his
evidence cannot be relied upon. We find no fault on the part of the
learned trial court in appreciation of the evidences so far.
25. The learned trial court has further found that PW-1
supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief saying
that he saw accused persons kidnapping PW-5 on 07.07.2021 at 5
o’clock in the morning. He further claimed that he was told by
PW-5 that all four accused persons gang raped her in a room and
made a video and threatened her to make it viral. PW-5 also
claimed so in her examination-in-chief but neither such video of
gang rape nor still photographs of the same has been brought on
the record by the prosecution to support the charges framed against
the accused persons. The learned trial court found that PW-1 is a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
12/17
hearsay witness, his evidence is contradictory to the evidence of
other witnesses, therefore, he cannot be relied upon.
26. PW-2 supported the prosecution case saying that
when he went for morning walk on 07.07.2021 at 5 o’clock in the
morning, he saw that PW-1 raised alarm that PW-5 had been
abducted by four persons in a white vehicle. He came to know on
inquiry that A-1 had come to the house of A-2 along with Naveen
and Rohit. He has further stated that victim came to Chhapra
Junction after two months and she told about gang rape with her. It
is rightly noted by the learned trial court that from examination-in-
chief of PW-1 and PW-2 it would appear that they had supported
the prosecution case that PW-5 was abducted by three of his
villagers and one stranger who was A-1 but surprisingly they did
not inform this occurrence to PW-6 (the informant). Had this
information been given by PW-1 and PW-2 to PW-6, she would
have mentioned this fact in her application on the basis of which
the present FIR has been lodged.
27. The learned trial court further found that PW-3 is a
hearsay witness, his deposition is full of contradiction and cannot
be relied upon. So far as the evidence of PW-7 John Marandi, who
is the Investigating Officer of this case, is concerned, he has
brought the different facets of his investigation on the record. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
13/17
has stated in his examination-in-chief that the place of occurrence
of this incident is situated at a distance of about 700 meters
towards west from Doriganj P.S. from where the victim has been
abducted but he did not identify the room in which she was kept
and accused persons gang raped her. From the testimony of the
victim (PW-5) it was found that she was taken to Jodhpur from
where she came to Chhapra. PW-7 has stated in his cross-
examination that he recovered the victim from Durga Mandir,
Chhapra and information was given to her family members but it
may be found from the evidence of the victim (PW-5) that she
claims to have called her father after her arrival at Chhapra
Junction who informed it to police and brought her to the police
station. The I.O. (PW-7) has admitted that he did not investigate
solemnization of marriage of victim with A-1.
28. Dr. Bushra Salim (PW-8) is the Medical Officer who
examined PW-5 on 30.09.2021. In her medical examination report
(Exhibit ‘P-6/PW-8’), she has not found any sign of injury over
whole body and around private parts. She was of the opinion that
the age of the victim is about 22 years and any evidence of recent
sexual intercourse had not been found. In her cross-examination,
she reiterated that no mark of violence on the body of the victim
girl including private part had been found.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
14/17
29. The learned trial court has found from the evidence
of the victim (PW-5) that she claimed to have been kidnapped on
07.07.2021 at 5 o’clock by A-1, A-2, Naveen and Rohit. They took
her to a room wherein she was locked and then she was subjected
to rape by the four accused persons who also made her videos. She
has stated that she had run away one day from Jodhpur and
reached to railway station by auto rickshaw, she came to Kanpur
and from Kanpur, she came to Chhapra Station from where she
gave a call to her father who reached at the railway station along
with police and took her to the police station. In her cross-
examination, she claimed that her Aadhar card and other
documents were lost. She also claimed that she never met A-1 as
well as his family members and she did not marry A-1 at
Markandey Mahadev Temple. The learned trial court has noted
major contradictions in the evidence of PW-5 on account of which
she cannot alone be relied upon for conviction of the accused
persons.
30. On a close scrutiny of the evidences adduced by the
prosecution witnesses, we find that the overwhelming evidences
brought on the record by the defence would eclipse the prosecution
case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
15/17
31. In this case, the defence has also adduced oral as
well as documentary evidences. DW-1 is the younger sister of A-1.
She has stated that marriage of A-1 was solemnized on 07.07.2021
in the temple of Markandey Mahadev. She photographed this
marriage and also took still photographs from her Realme 5 phone
and the same is saved in her phone. She has proved Exhibit ‘D-
1/DW-1’ to ‘D-30/DW-1’ which are the photographs and the
videos transferred from her mobile phone to the laptop of A-1 and
also in the pen drive.
32. Ratan Saroj (DW-2) is the father of A-1 and he has
stated in his examination-in-chief that marriage of his son and
PW-5 got solemnized on 07.07.2021 in the temple of Markandey
Mahadev, certificate was issued by the priest of this temple which
has been brought on record by him. The photographs contained the
photos of the couple and different documentary evidences. Exhibit
‘D-34/DW-2’ to ‘D-36/DW-2’ have been proved by this witness.
33. Mahesh Pandey (DW-3) has supported the defence
case. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was posted
as Incharge Inspector on 08.07.2021 at Lanka P.S. when victim
and A-1 (respondent no.2) were brought to Chitaipur Chowki upon
the complaint of her father. Parents of both were present there and
it was told by victim that she had voluntarily solemnized marriage
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
16/17
with A-1 and she wanted to live with him. DW-3 has further stated
that the victim refused to go with her parents and lastly her
custody had been given to the parents of A-1 and general diary
entry has been made by constable Dharmendra Kumar on his
direction in which the name of the girl has been entered as Ms. B
and the name of boy has been entered as A-1. He also identified
supurdginama which has been marked Exhibit ‘D-30’.
34. We have once again perused the entire evidences
which have been discussed hereinabove and found that the present
case is nothing but result of an afterthought and the victim (PW-5)
seems to have undergone some parental pressure at a subsequent
stage after two months of her marriage. No part of the judgment of
the learned trial court suffers from any infirmity, much less any
perversity. This Court finds no reason to interfere with this well-
reasoned judgment of the learned trial court. Even otherwise, the
principles governing an appeal against acquittal are very clear.
Unless the appellate court comes to an irresistible conclusion that
the accused is guilty of the offence charged, no interference would
be required.
35. In result, we refuse to interfere with the impugned
judgment of the learned trial court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1145 of 2023 dt.18-03-2026
17/17
36. In fact, we are of the view that it is a fit case in
which the informant-appellant should suffer cost for misusing the
process of court by lodging a false and frivolous case and taking
the same up to appeal before this Court causing further wastage of
the judicial time of the Court, but at this stage, this Court is not
imposing any cost of litigation.
37. This appeal is dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
SUSHMA2/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 01.04.2026
Transmission Date 01.04.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.