Legal Provisions Involved:Sections 361, 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Judgement by: High Court of Karnataka
Judge/Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T
Facts
The victim, allegedly a minor, was sent to her brother-in-law’s house in Bengaluru after her parents discovered her love affair with the accused. However, she allegedly eloped with the accused, who took her to a room in Kamakshipalya, then to Tirupathi and Hyderabad, before returning her to Jalahalli Cross. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, prompting appeals by the State and the victim’s mother.
Key Legal Provisions
Sections 361, 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Issues raised
- Whether the prosecution proved the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.
- Whether the accused kidnapped the victim from lawful guardianship.
- Whether medical evidence corroborated the allegation of sexual assault.
Arguments of the case
The Appellant argued that the victim’s statements before police and the Magistrate sufficiently proved the offence and school records established her minority while the Respondent argued that medical evidence confirmed no signs of sexual intercourse. Further, the victim herself provided the accused her address and voluntarily accompanied him, thus, no forcible kidnapping occurred.
Judgement
The Court held that the victim’s age was not proved, as school records alone were insufficient without a birth certificate or ossification test. Moreover, medical evidence conclusively showed no signs of sexual intercourse.
Click here to VIEW full judgement.
