The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for allegedly abducting a minor, ruling that the trial court improperly acted as an expert by guessing the woman’s age from physical traits rather than accepting medical evidence that established she was an adult.
In an order made available on Friday, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi allowed the appeal of Bhaiya Lal Raidas and overturned a February 8, 2013, judgment by the Unnao additional sessions court. The lower court had found Raidas guilty under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the kidnapping or abduction of a woman to compel her into marriage.
Flawed Medical Assessment By Trial Judge
Justice Vidyarthi observed that the trial judge committed an error by preferring his personal appraisal of the woman’s teeth and physical build over the clinical findings of a doctor and a radiologist, who had estimated her age at around 18 years.
The High Court noted that standard radiological evaluations carry an inherent margin of error of up to two years, meaning the woman could have been as old as 20 at the time of the alleged incident. Consequently, the court held that the state had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was below the age of majority.
Unsubstantiated Academic Records
The bench also faulted the prosecution’s documentation regarding the woman’s date of birth. Her father had not provided her age in the original first information report and later conceded during testimony that he did not know her birth date or exact age.
Although the woman later cited a Class 8 marksheet reflecting a birth date of September 25, 1993, neither an original nor an attested copy of the document was placed in the trial records, nor was it assigned an exhibit number.
The High Court pointed out that procedural law prohibits introducing extra documentary evidence during cross-examination without giving the defence a fair opportunity to contest it. Furthermore, the prosecution called neither the school headmaster, the principal, nor any institutional authority to formally authenticate the marksheet.
Contradictory Statements And Uncontested Cohabitation
Scrutinising the prosecutrix’s testimony, the High Court observed irreconcilable contradictions between her statements across different stages of the case. In her initial deposition before a judicial magistrate, she stated that she had accompanied Raidas of her own free will because they intended to wed, affirmed her wish to live with him, and expressly declined to return to her family.
During the trial proceedings, however, she altered her narrative, testifying that the accused had made her inhale a substance that rendered her unconscious before transporting her to Ludhiana in Punjab.
Justice Vidyarthi stated that while criminal law permits a conviction based entirely on the sole testimony of a complainant, such evidence must carry an exceptionally high degree of reliability.
The bench noted that the woman never retracted her earlier voluntary statements made to the investigating officer and magistrate. The court also observed that she had resided with Raidas in a rented house in Ludhiana for approximately seven months without registering any complaint or raising an alarm of physical coercion.
