Depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether a superior Court should interfere with?-SC

Kiransinh Jalamsinh  was told by his wife that their eldest daughter (the "prosecutrix") had not returned home from work. The prosecutrix worked as a maid sweeping and mopping a few hours every noon and evening. She was last seen coming out of the vacant Bungalow No. 4 of the Ramjani Society in Ahmedabad on 14.05.1998. Police were able to locate both the appellant and prosecutrix to a farm near Modasa,from where they were brought back to Ahmedabad. The charge of kidnapping under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC was upheld and consequential sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years was maintained by the High Court of Gujrat. The High Court in its order under appeal observed that the factum of the prosecutrix being in love with the accused having been established beyond any doubt coupled with the fact that they used to meet frequently, the appellant could not be held guilty of committing 'rape' and his consequential conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC was set aside. There being no evidence suggesting that she consented to be taken from her parents' lawful custody and given her undisputable minority, the conviction was sustained. In Supreme Court question arose

D.D On 12.01.2021

Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala  VERSUS State of Gujarat