Gauhati HC acquits the Accused from Kidnapping Charge as Girl Willingly Fled with Accused

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

Facts Of The Case

The case pertains to the challenge against the appeal to the judgment dated 06.01.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Sessions Case No. 343 (K) of 2008. By the impugned judgment, the learned Court below convicted the appellant under Section 366 A of the Indian Penal Code and awarded imprisonment for a period of 3 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for another period of 6 months.

The prosecution against the appellant revolved around the age of the girl which was stated to be 14 years as her birth certificate discloses her date of birth to be 02.11.2001. The father of the victim girl had lodged the complaint alleging that on 11.01.2006, the appellant had kidnapped his minor daughter. During the period of investigation, the victim girl gave her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. She had admitted before the Magistrate that she was in love with the appellant for a long time. Further, she also stated that pursuant to her love affair with the appellant, she herself had gone with the appellant and married him. On completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court also framed the charge under Section 366A of the Indian Penal code.

Issues before the Court

The only point for the determination of trial is as to whether the appellant induced the minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with the intent that such girl maybe, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to do illicit intercourse with another person. She disclosed that pursuant to her love affair with him, she had gone with the appellant on her own.

The accused did not plead guilty before the learned Trial Court and accordingly, the trial proceeded. As many as 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The defence plea was total denial and the appellant examined one witness. Thereafter, on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Trial court arrived at the impugned finding, who examined the victim girl at the time of police investigation. It appears that the Trial Court insinuated that if her parents had agreed then she would have the right to choose her life partner. Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code has laid down that kidnapping is of two grounds, viz, (i) kidnapping from India and (ii) kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

Court’s Decision

Reading Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code, it is clear that whoever procures a minor girl for some other person than only he can be held guilty under this Section. If he kidnaps a woman for him, then he shall be guilty under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. According to Section 366 of the Code, the age is immaterial. So, the learned Trial Court has erroneously framed the charge under Section 366A and also erroneously convicted under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, the victim has stated that she went with the appellant on her own. There is no cross-examination on that point and therefore, it is clear that she was a consenting party to the act of the appellant. Taking or enticing away a minor out of the keeping of a lawful guardian is an essential ingredient of the offence of kidnapping. Thus, the Court held that the impugned judgment as not sustainable. The offence against the accused-appellant had not been proven beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 06.01.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was set aside. The appellant was acquitted from this case.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -