The Gujarat High Court has set aside the 2006 conviction of two men accused of kidnapping a minor, citing lack of evidence and failure of the prosecution.
Observing the need to “educate and discipline young adult boys” that assisting or helping “maidens-in-distress” under 18 years of age would make them face trial under laws, the Gujarat High Court (HC) on Thursday quashed and set aside the 2006 conviction of two men who were booked for kidnapping and atrocity – when they were “protecting” the victim and “persuading her not to commit suicide.”
Considering the submissions of the advocates appearing for the appellant men as well as the submissions of the state, Justice Gita Gopi, in an 81-page common oral judgment delivered on Thursday observed, “Late adolescence as young adult requires to teach them a lesson that assisting or helping a maiden in distress-adolescence girls below 18 years of age would make them face trial under the Indian Penal Code or Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Lots of young adults are languishing in jail because of the stringent laws which do not approve relation with girl below 18 years, be it in a friendly manner…”
The court also observed, “Parents need to educate and discipline young adult boys as well as minor girls that friendship as well as adolescent’s consensual relationship are not protected by law and law presumes culpable mental state, where all the burden shifts on the young adult to prove that they had not committed any crime…”
The case pertains to an FIR registered by the father of the victim girl in 2004, accusing the two men of “taking away the victim from the legal guardianship of her father” by enticing her with marriage with one of the two accused. The men were booked under Indian Penal Code Section 363 and 366 for kidnapping and compelling for marriage as well as sections of the Atrocity Act. The two men were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs 5,000 under the charges of kidnapping and six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000 under the Atrocity Act.
The appellant’s advocates submitted that the two men were only protecting the “victim girl in distress”, who went to the Narmada canal on the day with the intention to die by suicide.
The appellants submitted that the police, instead of entrusting the victim to her parents, had taken her to a guest house where the two accused were with her to “protect” her and “persuade her to not commit suicide”, which ‘the police were aware of.”
The submissions also drew the attention of the court to the fact that the victim was an adult and had left the house on her own volition due to dispute with her family as “parents of the victim were having good government posts, when the victim herself was a Standard X fail student”. The court also considered the deposition of witnesses that the “victim’s brother had beaten her and for that purpose, she had gone to Narmada Canal” to take the extreme step.
Story continues below this ad
The court judgment noted submissions of Advocate Saurabh Mehta that at the time the appellants were booked in the case, one of them was “having an extraordinary academic career and was pursuing his studies in MBA when the appeal was filed”. The HC also considered that the victim had deposed during the trial and said that she was “never sexually exploited or abused by any of the accused.”
The HC observed in its judgment that the fast-track trial court “fell in error in considering the age of the accused and the fact that no case of sexual assault had been filed” under the Indian Penal Code. The judgment states, “…the police failed to protect the victim girl when she was in distress… Both the accused appear to have played the role of good samaritan, but landed up in jail. The victim’s deposition does not demonstrate that the appellants – accused forcibly removed or enticed her from the guardianship of her parents with deceit or inducement… It appears that both the accused had no idea that protecting the girl would land them up in jail.”
Stating that the prosecution had failed to successfully prove that the victim was less than 18 years of age and thereby, also failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The HC judgment states, “The whole of the prosecution case has been diverted to put the blame on the accused, where the police failed to protect the victim girl. The parents failed to provide her safe environment and proper care and affection at home, which had forced her to go out of the house with the intention to commit suicide.”
Stating that no offence was made out, the court acquitted the two men of all charges.
Aditi Raja is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, stationed in Vadodara, Gujarat, with over 20 years in the field. She has been reporting from the region of Central Gujarat and Narmada district for this newspaper since 2013, which establishes her as a highly Authoritative and Trustworthy source on regional politics, administration, and critical socio-economic and environmental issues.
Expertise:
Core Authority & Specialization: Her reporting is characterized by a comprehensive grasp of the complex factors shaping Central Gujarat, which comprises a vast tribal population, including:
Politics and Administration: In-depth analysis of dynamics within factions of political parties and how it affects the affairs in the region, visits of national leaders making prominent statements, and government policy decisions impacting the population on ground.
Crucial Regional Projects: She consistently reports on the socio-economic and political impact of infrastructure projects in the region, especially the Statue of Unity, the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail bullet train project as well as the National Highway infrastructure.
Social Justice and Human Rights: Her reporting offers deep coverage of sensitive human-interest topics, including gender, crime, and tribal issues. Her reports cover legal proceedings from various district courts as well as the Gujarat High Court (e.g., the Bilkis Bano case remission, POCSO court orders, Public Interest Litigations), the plight of tribal communities, and broader social conflicts (e.g., Kheda flogging case).
Local Impact & Disaster Reporting: Excels in documenting the immediate impact of events on communities, such as the political and civic fallout of the Vadodara floods, the subsequent public anger, and the long-delayed river redevelopment projects, Harni Boat Tragedy, Air India crash, bringing out a blend of stories from the investigations as well as human emotions.
Special Interest Beat: She tracks incidents concerning Non-Resident Gujaratis (NRIs) including crime and legal battles abroad, issues of illegal immigration and deportations, as well as social events connecting the local Gujarati experience to the global diaspora. ... Read More
