Atul Srivastava and Others Acquitted in Rape and Abduction Case; Court Cites Unreliable Testimony

In a significant judgment, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Jyotsna Siwach, acquitted Atul Srivastava, Sandeep Shukla, and Alok Singh of all charges under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, related to a case of abduction and gang rape. The case was registered in Police Station Itaunja, Lucknow, under Crime No. 234/2011.

According to the prosecution, the victim was allegedly abducted while on her way to get medicine and was forcibly taken in a white vehicle, after which she was held captive for three days and sexually assaulted by the accused. Her mother filed a complaint, and the prosecution submitted medical reports and statements from multiple witnesses in support of the allegations.

However, upon detailed examination, the court observed several inconsistencies and contradictions in the victim’s statements, including substantial deviations between her initial complaint, her statement under Section 161 CrPC, and later testimony under Section 164 CrPC. These variations, the court held, rendered the testimony unreliable and doubtful.

The medical report also did not confirm any definitive evidence of rape. Additionally, no weapons, intoxicating substances, or the alleged vehicle were recovered during the investigation. The court found that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charge that the accused abducted the victim under the pretext of marriage or committed rape against her will.

As a result, in Session Trial No. 1500077/2013, the court acquitted all three accused of the charges, citing a lack of credible and corroborative evidence.

Advocate Irshad Ali appeared on behalf of Atul Srivastava, defending the accused, while the prosecution was represented by the District Government Counsel (Criminal).

This judgment reaffirms the principle that serious charges must be backed by consistent and credible evidence. The case had attracted public and legal attention, and the verdict emphasizes the judiciary’s duty to uphold fairness and due process, particularly in sensitive criminal matters.