In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted Tilku alias Tilak Singh of charges under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), overturning the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court. The apex court, while setting aside the conviction, observed that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the appellant and that no elements of coercion or force were present. The bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, delivered the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2014.
Background of the Case
The case originated in 1994 when the prosecutrix, then alleged to be 14 years and 4 months old, was reported missing after leaving her home in village Koti to purchase salt from a neighboring village. It was alleged that Tilku Singh, his father Jot Singh, and Gabbar Singh kidnapped the prosecutrix and took her to a different location. The prosecutrix’s father filed an FIR on February 13, 1994, with the local Patwari.
During the investigation, both the appellant and the prosecutrix were found living together in Survey Colony, Dehradun. While the prosecutrix was returned to her father, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 376 (rape), 363 (kidnapping), and 366 (abduction with intent to compel marriage) of the IPC. The two other accused were charged under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC.
Trial Court and High Court Decisions
The Trial Court acquitted the co-accused but convicted Tilku Singh under all three charges, sentencing him to:
Three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC (kidnapping),
Five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC (abduction), and
Seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC (rape), along with fines totaling Rs. 7,000.
On appeal, the Uttarakhand High Court acquitted the appellant of rape (Section 376 IPC) but upheld convictions under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. However, the High Court reduced the sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment for Section 363 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment for Section 366 IPC.
Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court primarily addressed:
The age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident.
The voluntary nature of her actions in accompanying the appellant.
The inconsistency in medical evidence regarding her age.
Whether the essential ingredients of kidnapping under Sections 363 and 366 IPC were met.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court noted conflicting medical opinions regarding the prosecutrix’s age. Dr. Renuka Naithani (PW-3) estimated her age as 14 years, whereas Chief Medical Officer Dr. Raja Ram (DW-2) placed her age at around 18 years.
Given the uncertainty regarding her exact age, the Court held that the benefit of doubt should be granted to the appellant.
The prosecutrix’s own testimony revealed that she had voluntarily traveled with the appellant, married him in Dehradun, and lived with him as husband and wife.
Lack of resistance or alarm raised during the alleged kidnapping, including when she traveled on a public bus, supported the appellant’s claim that she left willingly.
The Supreme Court relied on the precedent set in S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras (1964 SCC OnLine SC 36), which held that a person voluntarily accompanying another does not constitute “taking” or “kidnapping” under law.
Final Decision
Citing these factors, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction, holding that “if a minor, who is capable of making a rational choice, voluntarily leaves the custody of their lawful guardian, the accused cannot be held guilty under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.”
“The prosecutrix was very much in the age of understanding as to what was right and wrong for her. From her own evidence, it is clear that she voluntarily accompanied the appellant, traveled to various places, and resided as husband and wife,” the judgment stated.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court acquitted Tilku Singh and discharged his bail bonds, bringing an end to a legal battle spanning over three decades.
