The Allahabad High Court has raised serious concern over the increasing trend of leveling false allegations of heinous offences—such as rape and child sexual abuse—against family members to settle personal disputes or gain control over property.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made these observations while acquitting a man who had been convicted by a trial court under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in 2020. The man, Ram Sanehi, had spent over nine years in jail following accusations of raping his minor cousin.

“The courts cannot shut their eyes to the ground realities... now it has become very common to level allegations of serious and heinous offences, including rape or sexual abuse of a child by family members, in petty disputes or to grab property,” the Court observed.

Justice Vidyarthi noted that Sanehi, who lived alone, remained in custody since his arrest in March 2016, and that his property had been left unprotected. The Court, exercising its inherent powers, directed that Sanehi be released immediately and that the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi, ensure he is restored possession of his house.

“This court finds it appropriate to order that the appellant be released forthwith and the Superintendent of Police shall ensure he is put back in possession of his house from which he was taken into custody,” the Court ordered.

During the pendency of the appeal, an amicus curiae appointed by the Court had only sought a reduction in the sentence. However, the Court examined the evidence afresh and found multiple inconsistencies.

It pointed out that the medico-legal report of the victim did not reveal any signs of injury, and that the prosecution relied solely on oral testimonies of the victim and her parents, without presenting any independent witnesses—despite claiming that several neighbors were present at the time of the incident.

“When a 45-year-old person is accused of raping his minor cousin and the allegations are unsupported by medical evidence, and no independent witnesses are examined despite their availability, it becomes necessary to scrutinize the oral testimonies carefully,” the Court remarked.

The bench ultimately held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges, and that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant without proper appreciation of evidence, especially medical and pathological reports.

“The findings of guilt recorded by the trial court are unsustainable in law,” the Court concluded, setting aside the conviction and ordering Sanehi’s immediate release.

Representation:

• For the Appellant (Amicus Curiae): Advocate Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui

• For the State: Additional Government Advocate Mohd Asif Khan