Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Rohidas Laxman Malge and Vilas Sopanrao Landge, were convicted by the trial court under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly kidnapping a 16-year-old girl on 5 May 1996. They were sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 each. The prosecution's case was that the victim was taken from her father's house at 4 a.m. by the accused in a jeep, as witnessed by Balaji Jadrane. The father filed an FIR on 7 May 1996. The victim was recovered and her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The trial court convicted the accused based on the victim's testimony and other evidence. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence. The victim testified that she voluntarily went with accused No.1, whom she loved, and that accused No.2 was driving the jeep. She did not raise any alarm. The court noted that the prosecution did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the victim's age, such as a birth certificate or school record. The medical evidence estimated her age between 16 and 18 years, which gave the benefit of doubt to the accused. The court also found inconsistencies in the testimony of the father and the alleged eyewitness regarding the time and manner of the incident. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age and that she was taken without her consent. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Age of Victim - Sections 363, 366 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Prosecution failed to prove victim's age below 18 years as no birth certificate or school record was produced; medical evidence only estimated age between 16-18 years, giving benefit of doubt to accused - Held that conviction cannot be sustained when age is not conclusively proved (Paras 8-10). B) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Consent - Sections 363, 366 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Victim's testimony showed she voluntarily accompanied accused and did not raise alarm; no evidence of force or inducement - Held that taking without consent is essential ingredient for kidnapping, and prosecution failed to prove lack of consent (Paras 11-13). C) Criminal Law - Appeal - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimony regarding time and manner of incident - Held that such inconsistencies create reasonable doubt entitling accused to acquittal (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was below 18 years of age and that she was taken away without her consent, warranting conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistency in evidence
- Age of victim
- Consent
- Kidnapping
- Indian Penal Code Sections 363
- 366
