Insufficient Evidence and Prosecution's Failure to Prove Victim's Age Leads to Acquittal
In a significant judgment, the Gujarat High Court has acquitted Rohan Kiritbhai Desai and Amit Devendrakumar Parmar, who were previously convicted by the Fast Track Court No.1, Gandhinagar, for offenses under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1949. The acquittal comes after the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the victim's age as under 18 years, a crucial element for establishing the charges of kidnapping and inducement.
Presided by Justice Ms. Gita Gopi, the High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented and found substantial discrepancies in the documentation used to ascertain the victim's age. The prosecution relied heavily on a birth certificate and school leaving certificate, both of which were deemed unreliable upon scrutiny. Witness testimony failed to corroborate the authenticity of these documents, with the court noting the absence of corroborative evidence from the public records and necessary verification by the Investigating Officer.
The judgment highlighted the importance of proving the victim's minority, which is central to charges under IPC Sections 363 and 366. According to the judgment, the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused had induced or enticed the victim out of lawful guardianship. Testimonies revealed that the victim voluntarily accompanied the accused and did not exhibit any signs of coercion or enticement.
Furthermore, the court scrutinized the allegations under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocity Act, related to assault or use of force to dishonor or outrage the modesty of a Scheduled Tribe woman. Justice Gopi concluded that there was no evidence of assault or use of force by the accused with the intent to dishonor or outrage the victim's modesty, leading to the setting aside of the conviction under this section.
The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that convictions are based on solid evidence and adherence to legal standards. It also reflects the challenges in prosecuting cases involving minors, where proving age becomes pivotal. The court's decision to acquit the accused emphasizes the principle that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, failing which the accused is entitled to acquittal.
The acquittal has sparked discussions on the prosecutorial process in cases involving minors and scheduled tribes, highlighting the need for thorough investigation and evidence collection to uphold justice.
Bottom Line:
Criminal Law - Conviction under IPC Sections 363, 366, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocity Act - Acquittal due to failure of prosecution in proving the victim's age as below 18 years and lack of evidence to establish inducement or kidnapping by the accused.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1949 - Section 3(1)(xi); Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 35
Rohan Kiritbhai Desai v. State Of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2845652
