Consent of a minor below eighteen is immaterial for offences of kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault.

The Appellant was convicted by the Special Court, POCSO, Panaji, for kidnapping and raping a minor (aged 16 years and 9 months).

On December 11, 2021, the victim left her mother’s custody at a construction site in Goa after the Appellant threatened to commit suicide if she did not join him.

They traveled to Ahmedabad, Gujarat, where they stayed in a rented room until January 2022.

The victim alleged that the Appellant had repeated sexual intercourse with her during this period.

Medical examination of the victim revealed old healed hymenial tears, indicating vaginal penetration.

The Appellant challenged the conviction, contending the relationship was consensual and citing investigative lapses, such as the failure to forward medical reports to the Magistrate during the Section 164 CrPC statement.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant "took" or "enticed" the minor out of the keeping of her lawful guardian under Section 363 IPC?

2. Whether the act of sexual intercourse with a minor aged 16 years and 9 months constitutes rape under Section 376 IPC and "penetrative sexual assault" under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, regardless of alleged consent?

3. Whether procedural irregularities in the investigation, specifically regarding the handling of medical reports and the gender of the investigating officer, are fatal to the prosecution’s case?

The Court applied Section 361 of the IPC, which defines kidnapping as taking or enticing a minor (female under 18) out of the keeping of a lawful guardian without consent.

It relied on *Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat*, establishing that "persuasion" or "inducement" that influences a minor's mental state to leave home constitutes "taking".

Regarding sexual offences, the Court applied Section 375 (Sixthly) IPC and Sections 2(d), 3, and 4 of the POCSO Act, stipulating that the age of consent is strictly 18 years.

It further cited *Independent Thought v. Union of India* and *Varun Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh*, reaffirming that any sexual intercourse with a person under 18 is rape, as a minor cannot give legal consent.

The Court found that the Appellant’s threat of suicide created "emotional duress and coercion," which induced the victim to leave her mother’s custody; this satisfied the requirement of "enticement" under Section 361 IPC despite the victim walking to the bus stand herself.

On the charge of rape, the Court held that the victim’s age (16 years and 9 months) was conclusively proven by the birth certificate and school records.

Consequently, her alleged willingness was legally irrelevant under the POCSO Act and Section 375 IPC.

The medical evidence (PW8) corroborated the victim’s testimony (PW1) regarding penetration.

Finally, the Court dismissed the arguments regarding investigative lapses, noting that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any "prejudice" caused by the IO’s failure to provide medical reports to the Magistrate.

The Court affirmed that consent is a "legal nullity" when the victim is under 18 years of age.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the Appellant for offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act (including the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence) was upheld in its entirety.