Acquittal upheld where prosecution failed to prove kidnapping or abduction beyond reasonable doubt.

The complainant alleged that on 24.08.2010, respondent No. 1 kidnapped his approximately 17-year-old daughter on a motorcycle on the pretext of marriage, while respondent No. 2 assisted him by providing a place of concealment. An FIR, I-C.R. No. 68 of 2010, was registered at Kalavad Police Station for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 114 of the IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced 25 documents. The victim was medically examined and her age was estimated at between 16½ and 17 years. The learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, acquitted both accused by judgment dated 30.06.2012. The State preferred an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The High Court noted that the complainant and his wife were away from Kalavad when the victim allegedly left with respondent No. 1. The prosecution’s evidence regarding the information conveyed to the complainant was not consistently corroborated. Although PW-5 allegedly saw the victim travelling with respondent No. 1 on a motorcycle, she did not raise an alarm or attempt to stop them

The victim herself did not depose that she had been forcibly kidnapped or abducted and had initially refused to return to her parental home when given the opportunity by the police

No specific role or overt act was proved against respondent No. 2

1. Whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondents of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 114 of the IPC

2. Whether the trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution

3. Whether the acquittal suffered from illegality, perversity, material irregularity or such manifest error as would warrant appellate interference

4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that respondent No. 1 kidnapped or abducted the victim and that respondent No. 2 aided or abetted the alleged offence

The Court applied Sections 363, 366 and 114 of the IPC. Section 363 criminalises kidnapping from India or from lawful guardianship; Section 366 applies where a woman is kidnapped or abducted with the requisite intent to compel marriage or facilitate illicit intercourse; and Section 114 attributes liability to an abettor present when the offence is committed

The Court relied on Shyam v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1995 SC 2169, for the proposition that, in an allegation of kidnapping or abduction, the prosecutrix’s conduct and failure to raise an alarm or seek help may be relevant to whether force or compulsion was proved beyond reasonable doubt

It also relied on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, and subsequent decisions including Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169, for the principles governing appeals against acquittal: the appellate Court may reappreciate the evidence, but the accused benefit from a reinforced double presumption of innocence, and an acquittal should not be disturbed where two reasonable views are possible unless the trial Court’s conclusion is manifestly illegal or perverse

The Court also referred to Amratbhai Bhanjibhai Gamot v. State of Gujarat as applying the principles in Shyam

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of kidnapping or abduction beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the complainant and his wife concerning the information allegedly received from their son was not corroborated by the son’s testimony, and the evidence of PW-5 did not satisfactorily demonstrate force, threat or compulsion because she neither intervened nor raised an alarm when she allegedly saw the victim leave with respondent No. 1

The victim’s medical history and deposition did not disclose forcible kidnapping or abduction; instead, her conduct in refusing to return immediately to her parental home supported the existence of a reasonable doubt regarding coercion

Although the prosecution relied on the victim’s minority and medical age estimation, the Court held that the evidence as a whole did not reliably connect respondent No. 1 with the charged offences in the manner alleged

As to respondent No. 2, there was no specific allegation or evidence establishing participation, assistance or abetment; the material omissions and contradictions further weakened the prosecution case

Applying the restrictive standard governing appellate interference with acquittals, the Court held that the trial Court’s view was a reasonable one supported by cogent reasons and was neither perverse nor manifestly erroneous

The criminal appeal was accordingly dismissed, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.06.2012 were confirmed, the bail bonds were cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial Court