In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, has remanded a case involving charges of kidnapping and sexual assault under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act back to the trial court for reconsideration of the discharge application. The case brings to the forefront the legal complexities surrounding the consent and age of a minor in criminal cases.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a criminal revision petition (CRLR No. 4107 of 2023) filed by Julius Masih alias Sintu Masih alias Ajay. The petitioner sought to challenge the order dated July 19, 2023, issued by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hamirpur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 397 of 2020. The trial arose from Case Crime No. 241 of 2020, filed under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (inducing a woman to compel marriage), IPC, and Section 8 (sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.
The complainant, Prakash Soni, alleged that his minor daughter (born on November 25, 2004) was enticed and kidnapped by the accused while she was out shopping on June 11, 2020. The case was supported by school records that indicated the victim was underage at the time of the incident.
Key Legal Issues
1. Determination of the Victim’s Age:
Contradictions arose regarding the victim’s age. While her school records indicated she was 15 years and 7 months old at the time of the incident, a birth certificate submitted by the defense showed her date of birth as January 13, 2001, suggesting she was an adult. The victim herself, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, asserted that she was 19 years old and had willingly accompanied the accused.
2. Consent of a Minor:
The prosecution argued that the consent of a minor is legally invalid, and the accused’s actions constituted kidnapping and abduction as defined under Sections 361 and 363 IPC. However, the defense contended that the victim willingly left her parental home and married the accused.
3. Applicability of POCSO Act:
The trial court initially included charges under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. However, the High Court observed a lack of substantive evidence for the sexual assault charge, as the victim explicitly denied any coercion or assault.
4. Scope of Section 366 IPC (Inducement to Marriage):
The court also examined whether the victim was induced or compelled to marry the accused against her will. The victim’s statements suggested otherwise.
Observations of the Court
The Allahabad High Court cited established precedents, including S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras (1965), and reiterated that “something more” than mere accompaniment is required to establish kidnapping under Section 363 IPC. It noted:
“Consent of a minor is immaterial for the charge of kidnapping from lawful guardianship. However, the evidence must demonstrate that the accused actively induced or persuaded the minor to leave her guardian’s custody.”
The court found that while there was a “strong suspicion” warranting a charge under Section 363 IPC, there was no prima facie evidence to sustain charges under Section 366 IPC or Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
The Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the trial court’s order, and directed it to reconsider the discharge application afresh. The trial court was instructed to evaluate the charges in light of the High Court’s observations, giving both parties a fair opportunity to present their arguments.
Parties and Legal Representation
– Revisionist (Accused): Julius Masih alias Sintu Masih alias Ajay, represented by Advocate Araf Khan.
– Respondent No. 2 (Complainant): State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by the Additional Government Advocate (G.A.).
