The Allahabad High Court has held that a minor’s consent is no defence to a charge of rape, while upholding the conviction of a married man who took a 16-year-old girl to Faridabad and kept her there for about 12 to 13 days.
Justice Abdul Shahid dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the sentences of up to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. The appellant, who was on bail, has been directed to surrender within fifteen days.
Background
The appeal challenged a February 20, 2016 judgment of the Fast Track Court No. 2/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. The trial court sentenced appellant Padam Singh alias Padmi to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC, seven years under Section 366 IPC and ten years under Section 376 IPC, along with fines of ₹5,000, ₹10,000 and ₹20,000 respectively, with all sentences to run concurrently.
According to the prosecution, the girl, who was living with her maternal uncle for her studies, went missing on the night of March 30/31, 2014 while the family was at a Jagran in the neighbourhood. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Muradnagar on April 8, 2014, and the police recovered her along with the appellant at the Duhai bus stand on April 13, 2014.
In her statement under Section 164 CrPC, the girl said the appellant told her he had marital discord with his wife and promised to marry her. She said he took her to Faridabad, where he rented a room, represented her as his wife and committed rape upon her every day. In her testimony before the trial court, she said he gagged her when she resisted, took her on a motorcycle, and confined her in the room.
Arguments
Counsel for the appellant argued that he had been falsely implicated and that the case rested on the testimony of the victim and her relatives, who were interested witnesses, with no independent corroboration. It was contended that the medical evidence did not support the allegation, since the doctor found no external or internal injury, no spermatozoa were detected, and no definite opinion on forcible intercourse was given.
Jhamman Ram, AGA-I for the State, argued that the victim’s testimony was clear, categorical and consistent with her Section 164 statement. He submitted that her age was established through her High School certificate showing her date of birth as March 3, 1998, and that the absence of injuries or spermatozoa did not by itself rule out rape.
Court’s Findings
The Court noted that a radiological certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer recorded the girl’s age as 18 years, but it was not exhibited at trial. Her High School certificate, verified by her and by the Investigating Officer, supported the trial court’s finding that she was a minor.
On the question of consent, the Court held: “In view of the victim’s minority, the question of consent does not arise, as her consent, even if alleged, would not constitute a valid defence in law.” It also noted that the appellant was a married man with three children and a distant maternal relative of the girl, and was in a position of dominance over her.
Relying on Supreme Court rulings including State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus, the Court reiterated that a prosecutrix’s sole testimony can form the basis of conviction without independent corroboration if it is reliable. It observed: “The absence of external injuries on the victim and the medical opinion expressing no definite conclusion regarding forcible sexual intercourse do not, by themselves, discredit her otherwise reliable testimony.”
Turning to the delay in the FIR and the alleged lapses in investigation, the Court found that the prosecution’s explanation for the delay did not justify discarding its case. It held that “A defect or omission in investigation does not automatically entitle the accused to acquittal where the substantive evidence otherwise establishes the prosecution case.”
Outcome
Finding that the victim’s testimony inspires confidence and the trial court had properly evaluated the evidence, the Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant must surrender before the trial court within fifteen days to serve the remaining sentence, with the period already undergone to be adjusted. If he fails to surrender, the trial court may take steps to secure his presence.
Case Title: Padam Singh @ Padmi v. State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4246 of 2017
Bench: Justice Abdul Shahid
Date: October 26, 2026
