In a major judgment under Barabanki Police’s “Operation Conviction,” 24-year-old Mohammad Salman from Narausa village in Lucknow has been sentenced to life in prison and fined Rs 80,000. Special Judge Veena Narayan of the SC/ST court in Barabanki found him guilty of serious crimes including rape, kidnapping, breach of trust, and violating laws meant to protect Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as well as the Uttar Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, a law against forced religious conversion.
The verdict was delivered on May 29 in Session Trial No. 1773/2024, arising from FIR No. 1063/2023, registered at Devan Police Station, Barabanki, under Sections 366, 376, 504, 506, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 3/5(1) of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Act.
Case Background
The case originated from a complaint filed on December 15, 2023, by Mohit Kanaujia, brother of the victim girl who comes from the Scheduled Caste community. In his complaint, he alleged that his sister, Gopi alias Aarti Kanaujia, aged approximately 18.5 years, was lured and abducted by Mohammad Salman on December 13, 2023, at around 8:00 PM.
According to the complainant, Salman, who operated a DJ sound service and resided in Narausa village, enticed Aarti to elope with him, taking jewellery, clothes, and cash from her home. Mohit reported that Aarti’s mobile was switched off, and despite extensive searches, her whereabouts remained unknown until her recovery by police on July 25, 2024.
The FIR was initially registered under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel marriage or illicit intercourse) and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Subsequent investigation led to additional charges under Sections 376 (rape), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 3/5(1) of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Act, reflecting allegations of rape, caste-based insults, threats, and pressure to convert religion.
Prosecution’s Case
The prosecution’s narrative, supported by witness testimonies and documentary evidence, detailed a calculated scheme by Salman to deceive and exploit Aarti.
Key points include:
1) Deception and Abduction: Salman misrepresented himself as “Sumit Kanaujia,” a Hindu from the Dhobi caste, to gain Aarti’s trust. He communicated with her via mobile for approximately two years, often secretly, as Aarti’s family disapproved of their interactions. On December 13, 2023, Salman allegedly persuaded Aarti to leave her home with jewellery and cash, promising marriage.
Aarti testified, “Salman told me his name was Sumit Kanaujia. He lured me with the promise of marriage and took me away.”
2) Rape and Coercion: After abducting Aarti, Salman took her to Shahjahanpur and later Maigalganj, where they resided in rented accommodations. Aarti alleged that Salman forcibly engaged in physical relations with her multiple times without her consent.
She stated, “Salman forcefully had physical relations with me repeatedly. I said, ‘First let’s get married,’ but he told me to convert to Islam, then we will marry”. Aarti further claimed that Salman confined her in a room, restricted her movements, and broke her phone to isolate her.
3) Pressure for Religious Conversion: When Aarti insisted on marriage, Salman pressured her to convert to Islam, stating, “Convert to Islam, then we will marry.” Upon her refusal, he resorted to casteist slurs and death threats, saying, “If you don’t convert, I’ll kill you and throw you away; your family won’t find you.”
Aarti later discovered that Salman was already married with children, a fact he concealed.
4) Caste-Based Offenses: Salman’s use of casteist slurs, such as “Dhobi,” targeted Aarti’s Scheduled Caste identity, constituting an offense under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution argued that Salman exploited Aarti’s vulnerable family situation, knowing her father was absent (working in Kerala) and her household lacked male protection.
Recovery and Investigation
On July 25, 2024, police recovered Aarti near Mittai Canal Bridge in Barabanki, where Salman had brought her to facilitate religious conversion and marriage. Salman fled the scene. A recovery memo was prepared, and Aarti’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC corroborated her allegations.
Medical examination at the Women’s District Hospital, Barabanki, conducted by Dr. Swati Rul (PW-4), did not conclusively confirm sexual assault due to the time lapse and Aarti’s bathing, but her testimony and consistent statements were deemed credible.
Key Evidence and Testimonies
The prosecution presented nine exhibits and seven witnesses to substantiate its case:
1) Mohit Kanaujia: Aarti’s brother confirmed the abduction, Salman’s deception as “Sumit Kanaujia,” and the theft of jewellery and cash. He stated, “Salman trapped my sister in his love trap by promising marriage and eloped with her, embezzling her jewellery and cash.”
2) Gopi alias Aarti Kanaujia: The victim detailed Salman’s deception, rape, confinement, and pressure to convert, reinforcing her lack of consent and fear for her safety.
3) Head Constable Dinesh Kumar Yadav: Confirmed the FIR registration and GD entry on December 15, 2023.
4) Dr. Swati Rul: Conducted Aarti’s medical examination, noting no external injuries but recording Aarti’s account of assault and a prior miscarriage induced by medication provided by Salman.
5) Dr. Neenu Singh: The investigating officer who recorded statements, prepared the site map, and added charges based on evidence.
6) Jagat Ram Kanaujia: Aarti’s relative, supporting the family’s account.
7) Head Constable Manju Devi: Recorded Aarti’s statement at the police station post-recovery, corroborating her allegations.
Aarti’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and her court testimony were consistent, with the court noting, “The victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and in court are uniform, proving the accused’s crimes beyond doubt.”
Defence Arguments and the Court’s Findings
Salman denied the allegations under Section 313 CrPC, claiming the accusations were false and part of a conspiracy. His counsel argued that Aarti consented to the relationship, knew Salman’s Muslim identity due to her aunt residing in his village, and willingly eloped. The defence also highlighted Aarti’s admission of love for Salman and their two-to-four-year acquaintance, suggesting mutual affection.
The court rejected these arguments, finding:
1) Lack of Consent: Aarti’s initial consent to elope was vitiated by Salman’s deception about his identity and marital status. Her testimony clarified that she was unaware of Salman’s true identity until after the abduction, and his subsequent actions—rape, confinement, and threats—negated any consent. The court observed, “Even if the victim loved the accused and eloped, she was unaware he was Muslim. He confined her, raped her without consent, and pressured her to convert.”
2) Deception: Salman’s use of the pseudonym “Sumit Kanaujia” and false Hindu identity was a deliberate ploy. The court dismissed the defence’s claim that Aarti’s aunt’s residence in Salman’s village implied knowledge of his religion, stating, “The victim’s aunt living in the accused’s village does not mean the victim or her family knew he was Muslim.”
3) Credibility of Testimony: Aarti’s consistent statements, corroborated by her brother and other evidence, were deemed “reliable, unblemished, and of high quality.” The court found no reason to doubt her account, supported by the recovery memo and police investigation.
4) SC/ST Act Violation: Salman’s knowledge of Aarti’s Scheduled Caste status and use of casteist slurs established his intent to humiliate and exploit her, fulfilling the requirements of Section 3(2)(v). The court noted, “The accused knew the victim was from a Scheduled Caste and used casteist slurs, saying, ‘I’ll kill you and your family won’t find you.’”
5) Religious Conversion Pressure: Salman’s insistence on Aarti’s conversion to Islam as a prerequisite for marriage violated Section 3/5(1) of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Act. His actions on July 25, 2024, bringing Aarti to Barabanki for conversion, further substantiated this charge.
Sentencing and Penalties
On May 29, 2025, the Special Public Prosecutor advocated for maximum punishment, citing the gravity of the offences and Salman’s exploitation of a vulnerable victim. The defence pleaded for leniency, noting Salman’s poverty, lack of prior criminal record, and sole responsibility for his household.
The court imposed the following sentences, to run concurrently except for additional imprisonment for unpaid fines:
1) Section 376 IPC (Rape): 10 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 25,000 fine (1-year additional simple imprisonment on default).
2) Section 366 IPC (Kidnapping/Abduction): 10 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2,000 fine (1-year additional simple imprisonment on default).
3) Section 504 IPC (Intentional Insult): 2 years simple imprisonment and Rs. 1,000 fine (3 months additional simple imprisonment on default).
4) Section 506 IPC (Criminal Intimidation): 1 year simple imprisonment and Rs. 1,000 fine (3 months additional simple imprisonment on default).
5) Section 406 IPC (Criminal Breach of Trust): 3 years simple imprisonment and Rs. 1,000 fine (3 months additional simple imprisonment on default).
6) Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act: Life imprisonment and Rs. 25,000 fine (1-year additional simple imprisonment on default).
7) Section 3/5(1) UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Act: 5 years simple imprisonment and Rs. 25,000 fine (1-year additional simple imprisonment on default).
The total fine amounted to Rs. 80,000, with Rs. 40,000 allocated as compensation to Aarti. The court directed that the time Salman spent in custody during the investigation and trial be adjusted against the sentences. A conviction warrant was ordered for his transfer to Barabanki District Jail, and a free copy of the judgment was to be provided to Salman per rules.
The court emphasised the severity of Salman’s crimes, noting his calculated deception, exploitation of Aarti’s caste and gender vulnerabilities, and attempts to undermine her religious identity. It stated, “The accused’s actions—luring the victim with false promises, raping her without consent, pressuring her to convert, and using casteist slurs—prove the charges beyond doubt.”
The life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act reflected the aggravated nature of the offence, given Salman’s knowledge of Aarti’s caste and his intent to humiliate her.
Love Jihad Punished
The case of Aarti Kanaujia and Mohammad Salman has been characterised as a stark example of “Love Jihad,” a term used to describe instances where Muslim men pose as Hindus to lure Hindu women into relationships with the intent of conversion or exploitation.
In this case, Salman’s use of the pseudonym “Sumit Kanaujia” and false Hindu identity to deceive Aarti aligns with such narratives. Despite regular reports of similar incidents, a significant section of society dismisses these as fabricated stories propagated to suit the political agenda of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
However, the Barabanki court’s judgment, bolstered by Aarti’s unwavering resolve to pursue justice, offers moral support to countless other victims of such abuses and forced religious conversions.
This verdict follows a precedent set by earlier judgments in Uttar Pradesh, such as the 2021 Allahabad High Court ruling in Salamat Ansari v. State of UP, which upheld the validity of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, emphasising protection against coerced conversions in interfaith relationships.
Similarly, in September 2022, a 25-year-old man named Mohammed Afzal, who was accused of concealing his religious identity to trap a minor girl in a relationship for the purpose of her conversion, was convicted by an Uttar Pradesh court.
The court order said that Afzal posed as Armaan Kohli and a Bhagwan Shiva devotee to trap the 16-year-old girl in a relationship. He made her elope with him, away from the guardianship of her parents, from UP to Delhi. He did all of this to forcefully convert her to his religion.
The district court of Amroha sentenced Afzal to five years in prison with a fine of Rs 40,000.
The first information report in this case was registered at the Hasanpur police station in Amroha on 2 April 2021 (number 139/2021).
Aarti’s case, with its rigorous prosecution under “Operation Conviction” and comprehensive evidence, stands as a beacon of hope, encouraging victims to come forward and challenge systemic exploitation.
Significance of “Operation Conviction”
The Barabanki Police’s “Operation Conviction” played a pivotal role in securing Salman’s conviction through meticulous investigation and evidence collection. The swift registration of the FIR, recovery of Aarti, and comprehensive charge sheet underscored the operation’s effectiveness in addressing crimes against women and marginalised communities. The prosecution’s robust presentation, supported by consistent witness testimonies and documentary evidence, ensured a conviction within 18 months of the FIR.
The conviction of Mohammad Salman marks a significant achievement for the Barabanki Police and the judiciary in upholding justice for victims of sexual violence, caste-based atrocities, and forced conversion attempts. The judgment reinforces the legal system’s commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals and deterring such crimes through stringent penalties.
Comments