When Documentary Evidence Available On Record, Medical Opinion Regarding Age Of The Victim Becomes Irrelevant – Allahabad High Court

“Consent of a Minor Is No Consent in Law – Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship Made Out”, Allahabad High Court delivered a significant judgment reaffirming the principles of statutory protection for minors under criminal law, while dismissing a 42-year-old appeal filed by one Ramvir, convicted under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Upholding the trial court’s judgment dated 24.08.1983, the Court observed that all essential ingredients of kidnapping from lawful guardianship and abduction with intent to compel marriage were fully satisfied.

The Court held, “Since the victim was a minor of 15 years of age at the time of incident, obviously there was threat perception on her and she obeyed dictates of the appellant under threat perception and followed him to Gwalior.”

“She Went Along Believing He Had Her Father’s Consent — Later, He Threatened to Kill Her If She Refused to Marry”

The facts narrated in the FIR registered by the victim herself were not only direct and specific but also aligned with the prosecution evidence. On 24.04.1980, the girl, then a 15-year-old student, was alone at her father’s medical shop when the appellant Ramvir arrived and persuaded her to accompany him for a cinema show, falsely claiming to have obtained her father’s permission. The victim went along, first to Tundla and then to Agra, where the appellant expressed his intent to marry her.

When she resisted, the appellant allegedly threatened her with death. Frightened, she accompanied him to Gwalior, where she was confined in a relative’s house under the pretext that she was his sister-in-law. When he went to the market, she escaped and went directly to the police station at Gwalior to report the incident.

This act, the Court said, demonstrated that “she was taken by deception, retained under threat, and kept in confinement until she managed to escape. Her will was subjugated by the fear created by the appellant.”

“A Girl Below 18 Taken Without Guardian’s Consent — Offence Under Section 361 IPC Stands the Moment This Is Proved”

Citing the statutory framework of Sections 359, 361, 363, and 366 IPC, the Court clarified that the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship is made out as soon as a minor girl is taken or enticed away without the consent of her lawful guardian.

Referring to the law laid down in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, the High Court reiterated:

“There is a distinction between 'taking' and 'allowing a minor to accompany'. If a minor voluntarily leaves her home but it is found that the accused had, by prior inducement or persuasion, played an active role in her departure, it constitutes kidnapping.”

In the present case, the Court held, “the appellant has enticed the victim for watching cinema with him on the pretext that he had already sought permission from her father. Thus, the victim has accompanied the appellant… She obeyed dictates of the appellant under threat perception and followed him to Gwalior.”

“Medical Guesswork Cannot Override School Certificate” — Court Relies on Date of Birth in High School Marksheet

The defence argued that the girl’s age was uncertain and based on medical estimation (16–18 years), she should be presumed to be a major. The Court rejected this contention categorically.

“The high school mark sheet reflects her date of birth as 11.04.1965. The incident occurred on 24.04.1980. She was 15 years of age. Documentary proof of age must prevail over medical opinion.”

The Court emphasized that when documentary evidence such as school records is available, “medical opinion would not serve any purpose with regard to age of the victim.”

“Merely Because She Didn’t Cry for Help in Public Does Not Mean She Was Not Under Fear”

The Court dismissed the appellant’s argument that since the victim had opportunities to raise alarm during travel or at the cinema, her silence amounted to consent. The Court observed:

“Victim’s failure to raise alarm cannot be treated as volitional consent, especially when she was a minor and under psychological fear… She ultimately escaped at the first opportunity and reported to police. This conduct is fully consistent with coercion and fear.”

“No Illegality in Trial Court's Conviction — Ingredients of 363 and 366 IPC Fully Established”

The Court concluded: “In the considered opinion of this court, all the ingredients of Section 363 and 366 are clearly made out in the instant case… The conviction as well as the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court is hereby affirmed.”

The appeal was dismissed. The Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra to take the appellant into custody to serve the remaining sentence.

“This Court Appreciates the Able Assistance Provided by Sri Deenanath Mishra, Amicus Curiae”

The Court expressed gratitude to the amicus curiae for his assistance in the matter and directed that he be paid an honorarium of ₹10,000 as per rules.

Date of Decision: 21 August 2025