Gujarat High Court Overturns 2006 Conviction, Issues Caution to Young Adults Assisting Minors
The Gujarat High Court has set aside the 2006 conviction of two men accused of kidnapping a minor, citing a lack of evidence and failures in the prosecution's case. In a significant ruling, the court emphasized the need to educate young adult boys about the legal risks of assisting "maidens-in-distress" under 18 years of age.
Court Highlights Legal Pitfalls for Good Samaritans
Justice Gita Gopi, in an 81-page oral judgment delivered on Thursday, observed that late adolescence requires teaching young adults a lesson. Assisting or helping adolescent girls below 18 can lead to trials under the Indian Penal Code or the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The court noted that many young adults are languishing in jail due to stringent laws that do not approve of relationships with girls under 18, even in a friendly manner.
The judgment stressed that parents must educate and discipline both young adult boys and minor girls. Friendship and consensual adolescent relationships are not protected by law, and the law presumes a culpable mental state, shifting the burden onto young adults to prove their innocence.
Background of the Case and Conviction
The case originated from an FIR registered in 2004 by the father of the victim girl. He accused the two men of taking the victim from his guardianship by enticing her with marriage. The men were booked under IPC Sections 363 and 366 for kidnapping and compelling marriage, along with sections of the Atrocity Act.
They were convicted and sentenced to:
- Two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 for kidnapping charges.
- Six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000 under the Atrocity Act.
Defense Arguments and Court's Findings
The appellants' advocates argued that the two men were merely protecting the victim girl in distress. On the day in question, she had gone to the Narmada canal with the intention to die by suicide. The police, instead of entrusting her to her parents, took her to a guest house where the accused were present to "protect" her and "persuade her not to commit suicide." The police were aware of this situation.
Submissions highlighted that the victim was an adult who left home voluntarily due to family disputes. Her parents held good government posts, while she was a Standard X fail student. Witnesses deposed that her brother had beaten her, prompting her to go to the Narmada canal.
Advocate Saurabh Mehta noted that one appellant had an extraordinary academic career, pursuing an MBA when the appeal was filed. The victim testified during the trial that she was never sexually exploited or abused by the accused.
Court's Criticism of Prosecution and Acquittal
The High Court observed that the fast-track trial court erred by considering the age of the accused and the absence of a sexual assault case under the IPC. The judgment stated, "The police failed to protect the victim girl when she was in distress... Both the accused appear to have played the role of good samaritans, but landed up in jail."
It further noted that the victim's deposition did not show the appellants forcibly removed or enticed her from her parents' guardianship. They had no idea that protecting the girl would land them in jail.
The prosecution failed to prove the victim was under 18 years old, thus not establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment criticized the diversion of the prosecution case to blame the accused, while the police failed to protect the victim and her parents failed to provide a safe home environment.
Concluding that no offence was made out, the court acquitted the two men of all charges, setting a precedent for similar cases involving young adults and minors.
