In a major decision, the Allahabad High Court on September 19, 2025, acquitted a man who had been convicted nearly 20 years ago for marrying and raping a 16-year-old girl. Justice Anil Kumar-X overturned the conviction of Islam alias Paltoo, holding that since the incident occurred in 2005, later legal amendments and the Supreme Court's Independent Thought (2017) judgment could not be applied retrospectively.
The Court said-
"Since the victim was over 16 years of age and physical relations took place after marriage, it cannot be termed as rape."
Background of the Case
This case dates back to August 25, 2005. Fazal Ahmad filed a complaint stating that his 16-year-old daughter had gone out to relieve herself when the accused Islam and two others lured her away.
The girl was found a month later. She stated that the accused first took her to Kalpi, where both solemnised a Nikah, and then to Bhopal, where they lived together for about a month.
The Trial Court convicted Islam under Section 363 (kidnapping), Section 366 (abduction to compel marriage), and Section 376 (rape) of the IPC, sentencing him to seven years of imprisonment.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the appellant Mayank Bhushan argued that the girl had voluntarily left her home and married the accused of her own free will.
"The marriage was valid under Muslim personal law, and as per the doctor’s report, the girl could have been over 18," he said.
He argued,
"If the girl had really been kidnapped, it would be impossible for her to travel by truck, bus, and live in a rented house among others for so long without seeking help."
On the other hand, the State maintained that since the girl was below 18, her consent was legally invalid.
"Anyone who takes a minor girl away from her lawful guardian is automatically guilty," the Additional Government Advocate said.
Court's Observations
The court discussed in detail the distinction between "taking" and "enticing" under Section 361 IPC. Justice Anil Kumar-X cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (1965), observing -
"The victim's statement that the accused asked her to accompany him does not by itself establish inducement or coercion. Her testimony shows she went willingly."
The judge noted that neither the girl nor her parents presented any concrete facts proving that the accused had deceived or forced her.
Regarding the rape charge, the court noted that physical relations occurred after marriage, and the Nikahnama (marriage certificate) was produced before the court without challenge.
The court further held that under Muslim law, "puberty" is considered the legal threshold for marriage, generally presumed at the age of 15 years.
However, the court also discussed the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and the Supreme Court’s Independent Thought (2017) judgment, which declared that sexual intercourse with a wife below 18 years amounts to rape.
But Justice Anil Kumar-X clarified -
"The Independent Thought ruling applies prospectively, while this incident occurred in 2005. Hence, under the law applicable at that time, it cannot be termed as rape."
Final Judgment
After examining all evidence and legal provisions, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the girl had been lured or abducted by the accused.
"There is no evidence to show that the victim was either enticed or kidnapped. Her statement clearly shows that both married and lived together by mutual consent," the court said.
Consequently, the court acquitted the accused of all charges under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC.
It also cancelled his bail bond and directed him to furnish a new bond under Section 437-A CrPC before the trial court within two months.
In a quiet courtroom, this nearly 20-year-old case came to an end - a verdict that reflected both the evolution of law and the boundaries of its time.
Case Title: Islam alias Paltoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 6400 of 2007
