Proof of minority and active inducement are essential requirements for establishing offences under Sections 363 and 366-A of the IPC.

The State appealed against the judgment dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Panna, acquitting the respondents of charges under Sections 363 and 366-A of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that on 06.08.2021, the accused enticed and forcibly abducted the prosecutrix (a suspected minor) on a motorcycle to Katni

The prosecutrix was recovered the following day at Katni Bus Stand

The trial court acquitted the accused on the grounds that the prosecutrix's minority was not proved and her conduct suggested consensual movement

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was a minor (under 18 years) at the time of the incident

2. Whether the respondents "took" or "enticed" the prosecutrix as defined under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, or if she accompanied them of her own volition

Section 363 (punishment for kidnapping) and Section 366-A (procuration of minor girl) of the Indian Penal Code

Regarding the determination of age, the court relied on the evidentiary value of school scholar registers under the Evidence Act, noting that entries must be based on authentic documentary record to be cogent

For the standard of appellate review in acquittals, the court followed the principles in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which mandate that an appellate court should not interfere if the trial court’s view is a "possible view" and not "patently perverse"

Om Prakash v. State of Haryana (1988) regarding the absence of kidnapping when a minor leaves home of her own accord without inducement

The High Court found major gaps in the prosecution's evidence regarding the age of the victim. The father (PW-1) was unaware of how school documents were procured, and the teacher (PW-3) admitted the admission register lacked parental signatures and was not supported by a birth certificate or medical report, making the age of 17 years unsubstantiated

Regarding the abduction, the court observed that the prosecutrix (PW-2) traveled through multiple populated villages and public places on a motorcycle with the accused but failed to raise an effective alarm or seek help from passersby

The court noted that even when a second accused (respondent No. 2) joined and drove the motorcycle, she did not attempt to escape, suggesting she accompanied them of her own volition

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal

The court concluded that the trial court's view was reasonable and a possible interpretation of the evidence, precluding appellate interference