Voluntary Departure of Young Woman Found to Defeat Kidnapping and Abetment Charges, Supreme Court Acquits

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal against a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court that had partly allowed a criminal appeal and sustained convictions under Sections 363 and 366 IPC while acquitting the appellant for rape under Section 376 IPC. The appeal challenged the High Court's maintenance of abduction and inducement convictions and the reduced sentences imposed by that court.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court judgment dated 8 March 2013 and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The Court held that conflicting medical opinions on the prosecutrix’s age entitled the appellant to the benefit of doubt and that, even accepting the High Court’s finding that the prosecutrix was between 16 and 18 years, the ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 IPC were not made out because the evidence established voluntary departure and cohabitation. The Court noted that the trial and High Court had disbelieved the charge of rape and observed that “the prosecutrix, who according to the learned Single Judge of the High Court, was between 16 to 18 years of age was very much in the age of understanding as to what was right and wrong for her.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It will thus be seen that taking or enticiting away a minor out of the keeping of a lawful guardian is an essential ingredient of the offence of kidnapping... There is no doubt that though Savitri had been left by S. Natarajan at the house of his relative K. Nataranjan she still continued to be in the lawful keeping of the former but then the question remains as to what is it which the appellant did that constitutes in law ‘taking’. ... The appellant, by complying with her wishes can by no stretch of imagination be said to have taken her out of the keeping of her lawful guardian. She willingly accompanied him and the law did not cast upon him the duty of taking her back to her father's house…”

Background: The prosecution alleged that on 7 February 1994 the prosecutrix (said to be 14 years and four months old according to one medical opinion) was kidnapped near village Darmigad by the appellant and two others and was later found living with the appellant in Dehradun. The prosecutrix’s father lodged an FIR on 13 February 1994. At trial the appellant was convicted under Sections 376, 366 and 363 IPC and sentenced to varying terms; the co-accused were acquitted. The High Court acquitted the appellant for rape (Section 376) but upheld convictions under Sections 363 and 366, reducing sentences to two and three years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively. The appellant challenged the High Court order before this Court.

The Supreme Court reviewed the prosecutrix’s testimony which showed she had travelled by bus with the appellant, gone to the Sub-Registrar and signed documents relating to marriage, and had lived with him in Dehradun. The Court recorded that two medical experts gave conflicting ages — one opined around 14 years on X-ray (PW-3) while the Chief Medical Officer (DW-2) opined around 18 years — and held that, in view of the conflict, “the benefit ought to have been given to the appellant-accused.” Applying the Constitution Bench precedent in S. Vardarajan (as relied upon in the judgment), the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredient of “taking” or enticement out of lawful custody where the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the accused. The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court judgment, acquitted the appellant, and directed discharge of his bail bonds. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 183 OF 2014 (2025 INSC 226) Case Title: Tilku alias Tilak Singh v. The State of Uttarakhand Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Sachin Patil, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Additional Public Prosecutor