The Gujarat High Court recently acquitted two men in a kidnapping case after finding that they had assisted a girl in distress and that no force or persuasion was used [Rohan KD v. State of Gujarat]

Justice Gita Gopi ruled that the men acted as protectors for a suicidal teenager, persuading her not to commit suicide, rather than criminals.

While allowing the appeals, the Court cautioned that the law does not protect adolescent friendships or consensual relationships involving minors.

“Parents need to educate and discipline the 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.”

By a judgment dated January 29, the High Court set aside the 2006 conviction, acquitted the accused of all charges bringing the criminal proceedings to an end more than two decades after the incident.

The case arose from a March 2004 incident in which the complainant alleged that his minor daughter had been kidnapped and taken to several cities, including Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat and Mumbai.

Two men were charged under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (inducing a woman to compel marriage) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

In 2006, a fast-track court in Gandhinagar convicted both accused and sentenced them to imprisonment and fines.

The men challenged the conviction before the High Court while the State opposed the appeals.

While examining the evidence on the question of age, the Court found that the prosecution failed to show that the girl was under 18 at the relevant time.

It noted inconsistencies in the birth certificate, school records and medical evidence, and recorded that the original birth register was not produced. The Court held that the girl’s age was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also noted that the girl had moved freely in public places, stayed in hotels, and had opportunities to approach the police during the period in question. In her testimony, she stated that she had not been sexually assaulted or wrongfully confined by the accused.

The Court hence found no basis for the whether she was taken away forcibly or induced.

Referring to the role of the accused, the judgment recorded,

“Both the accused appears to have played the role of good samaritan, but landed up in jail.”

The Court observed that the girl had left home with the intention of harming herself and had come into contact with the police even before meeting the accused.

It also recorded that the police did not ensure that she returned to her parents at that stage.

The Court further observed that the evidence suggested the girl had left home due to distress rather than because of any persuasions by the accused.

“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,” noted the Court.

She met the accused who according to the victim had kept friendly relations with her throughout. They then arranged her stay at different guesthouses.

"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. The victim had ample opportunity to make complaints against the accused, even when she was in the rickshaw of PW1, they met police who had intercepted the rickshaw there too. She introduced herself with accused Rohan as brother and sister, going towards examination hall. Accused Amit’s role appears to be of a provider giving money and purchasing clothes, for both the runaway victim and accused Rohan. It appears that both the accused had no idea that protecting the girl would land them up in jail," then Court said.

While acquitting the men, the Court reiterated that under the relevant statutes, informal or friendly arrangements involving minors are not recognised defences, and that the burden lies on young adults to prove that they did not commit any crime.

Hence, parents need to educate and discipline the young adult boys as well as minor girls about the legal trouble that could ensue as a consequence.

Advocate Saurabh J Mehta and advocate Vijay Patel of M/s HL Patel Advocates, represented the accused.

The State was represented in both appeals by Additional Public Prosecutor Rohankumar H Raval.

[Read Order]