Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shrikisan @ Shrikrishna Mahadeorao Japulkar, was convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and a fine for each offence. The appellant appealed against his conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly regarding the age of the victim. The prosecution relied on the victim's school leaving certificate and medical evidence to show she was a minor. However, the court found inconsistencies in the evidence. The victim herself stated that she was 18 years old at the time of the incident. The medical evidence was not conclusive. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor. Additionally, the evidence showed that the victim voluntarily accompanied the appellant and there was no force or inducement. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 363 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Age of Victim - The prosecution failed to prove that the victim was below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged kidnapping. The evidence regarding age was inconsistent and unreliable. Held that the conviction under Section 363 IPC cannot be sustained (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Kidnapping for Marriage - Section 366 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Consent - The victim voluntarily accompanied the accused and there was no evidence of force or inducement. The prosecution did not establish that the victim was compelled to marry against her will. Held that the conviction under Section 366 IPC is not sustainable (Paras 1-10). C) Family Law - Child Marriage - Section 4 read with Section 5 Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 - Age of Bride - The prosecution failed to prove that the victim was a child within the meaning of the Act. The medical evidence and other documents did not conclusively establish her age as below 18 years. Held that the conviction under the Child Marriage Restraint Act is not sustainable (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged kidnapping and marriage, and whether the conviction under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Kidnapping
- Child Marriage
- Age Determination
- Benefit of Doubt
- Inconsistent Evidence
