The court ruled that consensual actions of a mature individual cannot constitute kidnapping under IPC, reversing the conviction due to lack of substantive evidence.

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction made in Spl.C.No.150 of 2019 dated 30.08.2022 on the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act cases, Tirunelveli.

2. The appellant is the sole accused (hereinafter referred as 'accused') in Spl.C.No.150 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act cases, Tirunelveli.

3. The Inspector of Police, Pavoorchathiram Police Station, Tenkasi, laid a final report against the accused alleging that the defacto complainant Mariselvan and the accused are belonging to same place, that the defacto complainant's daughter (victim girl) completed her 12^th standard in 2018 and the accused, after completing polytechnic course, was working in a spinning mill at Coimbatore, that whenever the accused comes to the native place, by giving false promise to marry the victim girl had sexual intercourse with her, that subsequently, without the knowledge of the victim girl's parents, the accused had kidnapped the victim girl in his TVS Sport two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-76-AZ-4131 and took her to Chennai and Ooty and had physical intercourse with her several times and that thereby, the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Child From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as 'POCSO Act').

4. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, took the charge sheet on file in Spl.C.No.140 of 2018 and furnished the copies of records under Section 207 Cr.P.C. on free of costs. Thereafter, as per the orders of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli dated 19.12.2019, the case was transferred to the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act cases, Tirunelveli and the same was taken on file in Spl.C.No. 150 of 2019 on 20.12.2019. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused, framed charges under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the same were read over and explained to him and on being questioned, the accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15, exhibited 29 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.29 and marked2 material objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2.

6.The case of the prosecution emerging from the evidence adduced by the prosecution in brief as follows;

(a) P.W.1 (defacto complainant) is the husband of P.W.3 and P.W.2 (victim girl) is their daughter. P.W.1 along with his wife P.W.3, daughter P.W.2 and a son are residing in Melapavoor. P.W.1 is doing milk vending business, whereas, P.W.3 is working as a noon meal organizer. P.W.2 (victim girl) completed her 12th standard in Tenkasi M.K.V.K. Higher Secondary School and P.W.1 admitted her in Siddha Medical College, Nagercoil by remitting advance amount of Rs.50,000/-. P.W.2 was born on01.12.2000.

(b) The accused is also residing in the same street. After completing polytechnic, he is working in a spinning mill at Coimbatore. P.W.2 (victim girl) used to go to school through the house of the accused. After coming to know that the accused was in love with P.W.2 (victim girl), P.W.1 warned them. After completion of the annual examination, the accused had kidnapped P.W.2 (victim girl) on 04.08.2018. P.W.1 and P.W.3 searched for P.W.2 (victim girl) in all their relatives' house. Since P.W.2 (victim