Consent of Minor is Legally Immaterial in Offence of Kidnapping and Inducing a Girl to Compel Marriage

On February 16, 2014, the informant’s daughter (Annu Kumari), aged approximately 14 years, was allegedly kidnapped by the appellant and two others (Niraj Mahto and Mukesh Kumar) with the intent to marry her.

Barhara P.S. Case No. 24 of 2014 was registered under Section 366-A/34 of the IPC.

The victim was recovered from the appellant’s house in Supaul, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and a medical examination was conducted.

The trial court (ADJ-1, Purnea) convicted the appellant on September 29, 2015, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

The appellant challenged this conviction, contending that the victim accompanied him voluntarily due to a love affair.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of kidnapping a minor girl for the purpose of marriage under Section 366-A of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the consent of the victim is a valid defense in a case involving a minor.

3. Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the time elapsed since the incident.

The court primarily applied Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the procuration of a minor girl (under 18 years) with the intent that she may be forced or seduced into illicit intercourse or marriage.

It further applied the principle that in cases involving minors, the consent of the victim is legally immaterial.

The court also exercised its appellate discretion regarding sentencing under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The High Court found that the prosecution witnesses (P.W. 1-4) consistently supported the informant’s version of events.

The victim (C.W. 1) testified that she was drugged via "Prasad," taken to Supaul in a vehicle, and forced to sign papers against her will.

The court noted that the medical report (P.W. 5) assessed the victim’s age between 15 and 16 years, establishing her as a minor.

Applying the rule that a minor’s consent is irrelevant, the court dismissed the appellant's plea of a "love affair" as insufficient to negate the criminal act.

The court found no perversity in the trial court's findings regarding the appellant's guilt.

Regarding the sentence, the court observed that over a decade had passed since the 2014 incident and the appellant had already served approximately three years of his five-year sentence.

The court held that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant (approx. 3 years).

The appellant was ordered to be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds, and the appeal was disposed of with the modification in sentencing.