Prosecutrix Between 16 To 18 Years Of Age; Understood What Was Right & Wrong For Her: SC Acquits Accused Of Kidnapping Minor Girl
|The Appeal before the Apex Court challenged the judgment passed by the Uttarakhand High Court partly allowing the criminal appeal filed by the appellant.
The Supreme Court acquitted a man booked for allegedly kidnapping a minor girl after noting that the prosecutrix had voluntarily gone along with the accused, travelled with him and both of them resided as husband and wife.
The Appeal before the Apex Court challenged the judgment passed by the Uttarakhand High Court partly allowing the criminal appeal filed by the appellant.
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “It is thus clear that the prosecutrix, who according to the learned Single Judge of the High Court, was between 16 to 18 years of age was very much in the age of understanding as to what was right and wrong for her.”
AOR Anagha S. Desai represented the Appellant while Advocate Anubha Dhulia represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was alleged that when the persons, namely, Tilku @ Tilak Singh (appellant), his father Jot Singh, and one Gabbar Singh came from behind and kidnapped the prosecutrix, who was aged 14 years 4 months at that time. Since the prosecutrix was missing, her father (PW-2) lodged a First Information Report (FIR). The investigating agency found the appellant as well as the prosecutrix residing together in Dehradun. From there the appellant herein was taken into custody, whereas the prosecutrix was given in custody to her father. A charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as the other two accused, for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 363 of the IPC.
The Trial Court acquitted the other two accused and only convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376, 363 and 366 of the IPC. In Appeal, the High Court though acquitted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC but upheld the conviction under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. The High Court also reduced the sentence to two years under Section 363 IPC and three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal by way of special leave was filed by the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix, the Bench observed that she had gone on her own accord with the appellant. Therefore, the defence of the appellant that he had married the prosecutrix and the marriage was certified before the competent authority at Dehradun and thereafter they were living as husband and wife at Dehradun was a plausible defence.
The Bench also noted how the High Court himself disbelieved the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-1) with regard to the appellant committing rape on her. There was absolutely no injury on the body of the prosecutrix and she never made any attempt to resist or raise a cry. The Single Judge of the High Court also observed that the victim was with the appellant for about 20 days; travelling to different places along with him before reaching the final destination at Dehradun. “The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC”, the Bench said.
The Bench noticed that one of the Doctors stated that according to the X-ray reports, the age of the prosecutrix was around 14 years, however, the Chief Medical Officer Dehradun, opined that the age of the prosecutrix was around 18 years. “In view of the two conflicting medical opinions, we are of the opinion that the benefit ought to have been given to the appellant-accused”, the Bench said. It was also held by the Bench that even if the finding of the Single Judge of the High Court that the prosecutrix was between 16 to 18 years of age was to be accepted, the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC would still not be made out.
“It is thus clear that the prosecutrix, who according to the learned Single Judge of the High Court, was between 16 to 18 years of age was very much in the age of understanding as to what was right and wrong for her”, the Bench said. The Court observed that the prosecutrix had voluntarily gone along with the appellant herein, travelled to various places and also resided as husband and wife at Dehradun. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court and acquitted the appellant of the charges he was charged with.
Cause Title: Tilku Alias Tilak Singh v. The State of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 226)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Anagha S. Desai, Advocates Satyajit A. Desai, Sachin Patil, Preetraj R. Dhok, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Sachin Singh, Ananya Thapliyal
Respondent: Advocate Anubha Dhulia, AOR Akshat Kumar