Acquittal in Rape and Abduction Case due to Unproven Age of Victim and Evidence of Consensual Relationship

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC for allegedly abducting a girl on 06.02.2004 and committing forceful sexual intercourse in Bhopal

The prosecution relied on a school certificate (Ex. P-2) stating the victim's date of birth as 08.09.1990 (making her 14)

However, medical evidence suggested the victim was habitual to intercourse, and a non-exhibited radiological report estimated her age between 15 and 17 years

The victim admitted in cross-examination that she stayed with the appellant for a month, met relatives and villagers during travel, but never raised an alarm or complained of force

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was below 16 years of age and thus incompetent to grant consent for sexual intercourse under Section 376 IPC?

2. Whether the appellant’s actions constituted abduction with the intent to compel marriage or forced intercourse under Section 366 IPC?

The Court applied Sections 366 (Abduction to compel marriage/intercourse) and 376 (Rape) of the IPC

It relied on the precedent Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, as affirmed in Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, establishing that school register entries have no evidentiary value regarding age unless the person who made the entry or provided the information is examined

Regarding Section 366, the Court applied the principle from Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra, which mandates proving specific intent or deceitful means to compel marriage or illicit intercourse beyond mere abduction

The Court found the Trial Court's reliance on the school certificate perverse because the author of the entry was not examined

Contrastingly, the prosecution suppressed a radiological report indicating the victim was likely above 16

The Court observed that the victim’s conduct—staying for a month in Bhopal, traveling by public transport without protest, and failing to inform her uncle of any force—strongly indicated a consensual relationship

There was no evidence of "force or deceitful means" required for Section 366; rather, defense witnesses (DW-1, DW-2) corroborated a long-standing love affair

Since the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor, her consent vitiated the charge of rape

It held that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority through cogent evidence and failed to establish the essential ingredients of abduction under Section 366

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 29.03.2005, and acquitted the appellant of all charges

The appellant’s bail bonds are to remain in force for six months per Section 437-A CrPC / Section 481 BNSS