Evidence of consent and age discrepancy plays a crucial role in sexual assault convictions. The prosecution must provide conclusive evidence supporting the minor's age and lack of consent for kidnapping or rape charges.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, Court No.10 in Sessions Case No.140 of 2000.

2. The appellant as an accused came to be convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of three months, whereas under Section 366 of IPC, was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- with the default stipulation to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. While under Section 376 of IPC, the conviction was with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years, ordered to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, with the benefit of set off for the time spent in judicial custody.

3. The facts of the case as could be drawn from the impugned judgment briefly put are that the accused by luring the victim girl aged about 14 years, on 16.09.1998 at about 15.45 hours without the consent of the parents took away the girl from their local custody on his motor bike and then went to Hotel Ghunghat at Gandhinagar and entered into physical relation with the victim girl. Subsequently on 17.11.1998, again the victim was taken away from the guardianship of the parents. A writ petition was filed by the father of the victim girl before the High Court for Habeas Corpus on 11.01.1999. It is the prosecution case that during this period, accused had sexual relations with the victim girl.

4. After due investigation into the complaint made by Gurudevsingh Jasbirsingh Bakshi, the police filed the chargesheet against the accused. Under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The accused was charged for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC on 01.03.2001. Subsequently, charge under Section 376 of the IPC was added on 25.05.2001.

5. The accused challenged the addition of the charge before this High Court preferring Criminal Revision Application No.357 of 2001. The applicant accused thereafter, chose to withdraw the application thus, the trial proceeded against him wherein the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him.

6. The prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses. Further statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded whereby the accused admitted the fact that he knew the victim-prosecutrix as he was visiting Smruti Apartment, Near Azad Society where he had a friend living there. The accused admitted of his regular meeting with the prosecutrix at her residence since one of his friends was a friend of the elder sister of the prosecutrix. The accused further stated that he was ensured by the mother of the prosecutrix that he would be engaged to be married to the prosecutrix and therefore, with the mother’s wish and desire, he was meeting the prosecutrix. The accused also stated that the prosecutrix and he were good friends and they ha