Prosecutrix Between 16 To 18 Years Of Age; Understood What Was Right & Wrong For Her: SC Acquits Accused Of Kidnapping Minor Girl

Post By 24law
February 18, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man accused of kidnapping a minor girl, holding that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied him, traveled with him, and resided as his wife. The Court emphasized that she was in an age group where she could differentiate between right and wrong, thereby negating the charges under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background

The appeal was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which had partly allowed the appellant’s criminal appeal. The High Court had acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 376 IPC but upheld his conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The Supreme Court, however, overturned the conviction entirely.

Factual Matrix

According to the prosecution, the appellant, Tilku @ Tilak Singh, along with two others, allegedly kidnapped the prosecutrix, who was stated to be 14 years and 4 months old at the time. An FIR was registered by her father, and the appellant was later found residing with the prosecutrix in Dehradun, where they were living as husband and wife. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376, 363, and 366 IPC while acquitting the other two accused. The High Court, on appeal, acquitted him of the rape charge but maintained his conviction under the remaining sections, reducing the sentence to two years under Section 363 IPC and three years under Section 366 IPC.

Observations of the Supreme Court

A bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, scrutinized the evidence, particularly the testimony of the prosecutrix. The Court noted: "A perusal of testimony of the prosecutrix itself would reveal that she had gone on her own accord with the appellant herein. Therefore, the defence of the appellant herein that he had married the prosecutrix and not only that but also that the marriage was certified before the competent authority at Dehradun and thereafter they were living as husband and wife at Dehradun is a plausible defence."

The Court also noted that the High Court itself had disbelieved the prosecutrix’s testimony regarding the rape allegations, stating: "It was found by the learned Single Judge that there was absolutely no injury on the body of the prosecutrix and that she had never made any attempt to resist or raise a cry. The learned Single Judge further goes on to observe that in fact she was with the appellant for about 20 days; travelling to different places along with him before reaching the final destination at Dehradun."

Conflicting Age Determination

A crucial aspect of the case revolved around the age of the prosecutrix. The Court observed that two medical opinions conflicted—one suggesting she was around 14 years old while another opined that she was around 18 years old. The Court held: "In view of the two conflicting medical opinions, we are of the opinion that the benefit ought to have been given to the appellant-accused."

The Bench further held that even if the High Court's finding that she was between 16 and 18 years was accepted, the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC would not be made out. Citing S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras (1964 SCC OnLine SC 36), the Court reiterated: "It is thus clear that the prosecutrix, who according to the learned Single Judge of the High Court, was between 16 to 18 years of age was very much in the age of understanding as to what was right and wrong for her."

Verdict

The Supreme Court found that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the appellant, traveled to different places, and lived with him as his wife. The learned Single Judge was not justified in upholding the conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges. "The judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand dated 8th March 2013 in Criminal Appeal No.140 of 2003 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges he was charged with."