PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has overturned the Trial Court’s ruling that sentenced a man for allegedly kidnapping a teenager despite her testimony that she willingly eloped. The Bench of Justice A G Gharote also observed that the victim was aware of the consequences of her action and capable of making a considered decision.
The case dates back to 2019 when a Karnataka native Khadarkhan Khanajade was booked for kidnap and rape. The POCSO Court subsequently sentenced him to one-year imprisonment for kidnapping and acquitted him of rape charges.
However, in the appeal before the High Court, the accused petitioner argued that the essential element for the offence of kidnapping under Section 363 of the IPC was not met, as it required taking a person out from the lawful guardianship of parents, which was not proven.
“The accused as well as the victim, both were residents of the same locality and love had blossomed between them, as a result of which though the victim was more than 17 years old at the relevant time, she was aware of the consequences of her actions and had voluntarily accompanied the Appellant (accused) in the year 2019, whereupon they went to Karnataka and have subsequently got married and also having a child from the said wedlock,” Khanajade’s lawyer argued during the hearing.
He argued that the basic ingredient of the kidnapping offence was not made out, considering that the conviction cannot be sustained.
The petitioner also pointed out the victim's deposition wherein she categorically stated that she moved out of her house willingly after which both left for Karnataka.
Hearing both the parties, the Court of Justice A G Gharote observed that this would clearly demonstrate that though the victim was 17 years and 10 months of age at that relevant time, she was clearly aware of the consequences of her action and was capable of taking a considered decision in that regard.
“… it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 363 of the IPC have been established by the prosecution. Though the Special Court noted the position, stated by the victim in her cross-examination that she had left the house of her parents on her own wish and was not forced by the accused when she left the house, the Special Court merely on the ground that the victim had not completed the age of majority at the relevant time accorded the conviction,” the High Court observed while quashing the conviction and sentence period.
