The Allahabad High Court on September 19, 2025, acquitted a man who had been convicted for kidnapping, forcibly marrying, and raping a minor girl. Justice Anil Kumar observed that the victim had voluntarily left with the appellant, and any acts that occurred after the solemnization of their marriage could not be classified as rape and kidnapping.
The appellant challenged his conviction by the Trial Court where he had been sentenced to five years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for kidnapping, seven years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for inducing a woman for marriage or sexual intercourse, and an additional seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence of rape. The case arose when the father alleged that his 16-year-old daughter had been enticed and taken away by the appellant. However, the victim testified that she had willingly accompanied the appellant, stayed in Kalpi for a day where their Nikah was solemnized, and then traveled to Bhopal, living with him for a month. While the parents corroborated that she had been taken away, they did not provide any evidence of coercion or inducement. The appellant produced the marriage contract and other relevant documents, asserting that the marriage was consensual, yet the Trial Court convicted him, holding that the consent of a minor is immaterial.
The Court noted the lack of sufficient evidence to support the alleged kidnapping and enticement of the victim, while also taking into account that the victim was over 16 years of age at the time of the incident. Therefore in its analysis, the Court referred to the principles established in Thakorlal D. Vadgdama v. State of Gujarat AIR 1973 SC 2313, which distinguishes between “taking” a minor, a physical act of causing a minor to go with the offender with or without force and “enticing” which involves mental inducement or allure. The Court also relied on S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras 1965 AIR 942, emphasizing that a minor leaving the guardian voluntarily, even if facilitated by the accused, does not amount to “taking” unless there is active inducement. Additionally, the Court relied on Independent Thought v. Union of India AIR 2017 SC 4904, which clarified the exception regarding consent of minors aged 15–18 years in the context of marriage, concluding that the appellant could not be held guilty for rape following a valid marriage. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, directed the appellant to furnish a bail bond within two months, discharged his sureties, ordered the judgment to be sent to the Trial Court for reference, and called for a compliance report to be submitted at the earliest.
Appearances:
For Appellant(s)- Adv Mayank Bhushan
For Respondent(s)- Govt. Advocate
