Allahabad- In a judgment that meticulously dissects the legal nuances of consent, kidnapping, and marital relationships, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man who was sentenced to seven years in prison for the alleged kidnapping and rape of a girl back in 2005. The court, in a ruling that underscores the critical difference between criminal abduction and a consensual act, held that the prosecution failed to prove that the man had "enticed" or "taken" the girl, and that their relationship was established following a marriage.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar, in a comprehensive 29-paragraph judgment, set aside the 2007 order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, which had convicted the appellant, Islam under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping to compel marriage or illicit intercourse), and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code.
The case dates back to August 25, 2005, when a written complaint was filed by one Fazal Ahmad alleging that his approximately 16-year-old daughter had been enticed away by the appellant and two others. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered, and the girl was recovered by the police a month later, on September 25, 2005.
During the trial, the prosecution presented its version through witnesses, including the victim and her parents. The victim, in her testimony, stated a sequence of events that became central to the High Court's decision. She said she met the appellant when she had gone out, and he asked her to accompany him on a trip. She agreed, and together they travelled to Kalpi. Crucially, she testified that in Kalpi, their Nikah (Islamic marriage ceremony) was solemnized. They stayed there for a day before moving to Bhopal, where they lived as a married couple in a rented room for about a month.
The High Court's acquittal rests on a two-pronged legal analysis: first, whether the act constituted "kidnapping," and second, whether the subsequent sexual intercourse constituted "rape."
On Kidnapping: "Taking" vs. "Accompanying"
The court embarked on a detailed examination of Section 361 of the IPC, which defines "kidnapping from lawful guardianship." The core question was whether the appellant "took" or "enticed" the minor girl.
The judgment extensively quoted the Supreme Court's ruling in Thakorlal D. Vadgdama v. The State of Gujarat, explaining the terms: "The word 'takes' does not necessarily connote taking by force... This word merely means, 'to cause to go,' 'to escort' or 'to get into possession'. The word 'entice' seems to involve the idea of inducement or allurement by giving rise to hope or desire in the other."
More pivotally, the court relied on S. Varadarajan vs State Of Madras, which established a vital legal distinction. The Supreme Court in that case had held, "There is a distinction between 'taking' and allowing a minor to accompany a person... if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence."
Applying this precedent, Justice Anil Kumar observed that the victim's testimony and the circumstances revealed a story of premeditated elopement, not forcible abduction. "The circumstances disclosed by victim also manifest that their elopement was premeditated. It is significant to note that none of the prosecution witness has stated any such fact which suggests that appellant had done any such act from which it can be derived that he manipulated victim to go with him," the court noted.
The judgment concluded, "Hence, prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to suggest that victim was either 'enticed' or 'taken' by appellant. Hence offence under Section 363 I.P.C against appellant is not made out." Consequently, the more serious charge under Section 366, which is predicated on kidnapping, also fell through.
The court then addressed the conviction under Section 376 (rape). The medical evidence placed the victim's age above 16 but not above 18 years. The appellant had produced a Nikahnama (marriage contract) in his defense, which the prosecution did not rebut. The victim herself admitted that their physical relationship was established after the Nikah was performed.
The court acknowledged the Supreme Court's landmark 2017 verdict in Independent Thought vs Union Of India, which struck down Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC- a clause that decriminalized marital rape of a wife aged between 15 and 18 years. The Supreme Court had held that "sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age is rape regardless of whether she is married or not."
However, the Allahabad High Court noted a critical detail: the Supreme Court had explicitly stated that its judgment would have "prospective effect." Since the incident in the present case occurred in 2005, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the law as it existed at that time. Therefore, the sexual intercourse between the appellant and the victim, following their marriage, was not considered rape under the legal framework applicable in 2005.
After this exhaustive analysis, the High Court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed. It allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant of all charges. The judgment and order of sentence were set aside.
The appellant, who was out on bail, was ordered to have his bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged. He was directed to furnish a fresh bond as per legal procedure.
This judgment clarifies that not every case of a minor leaving home amounts to "kidnapping" under the IPC, especially when the evidence points to a voluntary act aimed at marriage. The ruling reinforces the principle that in criminal law, the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and convictions cannot be sustained on presumptions or moral grounds alone.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.