Young Men Languishing In Jail As Laws Don't Approve Relationship With Girls Below 18 Yrs Even If Just Friendly: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has quashed an order convicting two men of kidnapping a girl observing that they were 'good samaritans' who had helped her but instead landed up in jail, adding that many young men were languishing in jail because of stringent laws which don't approve relations with the girls below 18 years even if it is friendly.The court was hearing appeals filed by two young men, who were convicted by the trial court of kidnapping a girl (Section 363 IPC) and for inducing her to compel her to marry (Section 366IPC) and were further sentenced to two years for each of the offences. They were further convicted under provisions of of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act. The prosecution alleged that both the accused had kidnapped the complainant's daughter by alluring her with a false promise of marriage with accused No.2 and thereby took her away from the legal guardianship of her father. The accused claimed that the alleged victim was an adult and had left her house on her own volition; she was not induced or lured to leave her father's house. It was claimed that she stayed out of her own will with the accused and never tried to contact her family or make any complaint. It was argued that as per the evidence the girl's brother had beaten her and thereafter she had gone to a Canal to commit suicide where she was found by the police. Further the police was aware that she was living with the accused at a guest house. It was argued that she had accompanied the accused from Gandhinagar to Ahmedabad and other places and on her own free will. Justice Gita Gopi in her order observed that the two accused–Rohan and Amit, had sought to help the victim but had instead landed up in jail and said:"The facts and circumstances of the case, through the examination of witnesses, clearly draws to a conclusion that the police failed to protect the victim girl when she was in distress. When the victim had gone to commit suicide at Narmada Canal, the police which met her were required to entrust the girl to her parents. Both the accused appears to have played the role of Good Samaritan, but landed up in jail. The victim's deposition does not demonstrate that the appellants-accused forcibly removed or enticed her from the guardianship of her parents with deceit or inducement. The victim had ample opportunity to make complaints against the accused, even when she was in the rickshaw of PW1, they met police who had intercepted the rickshaw there too. She introduced herself with accused Rohan as brother and sister, going towards examination hall. Accused Amit's role appears to be of a provider giving money and purchasing clothes, for both the runaway victim and accused Rohan. It appears that both the accused had no idea that protecting the girl would land them up in jail". "Late adolescence as young adult requires to teach them a lesson that assisting or helping a maiden in distress-adolescence girls below 18 years of age would make them face trial under the Indian Penal Code or Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Lots of young adults are languishing in jail, because of the stringent laws which do not approve relation with the girl below 18 years, be it in a friendly manner," the court added. The court further observed that young girls are not free to express their opinion and take decisions, wherein probably the girl would have wanted to take the responsibility of her decisions, but her parents would not have allowed her to do so. It said that in the present case the girl would have certainly informed the police that she had left the parents house on her own and was to commit suicide. But, the court observed, the "parents must have forced her to give contrary version forcing her to give testimony against the accused". "The victim girl may not be aware of the consequences that her tutored version would subject the accused to arrest, prolonged pretrial incarceration, exposing to lasting social stigma. Parents need to educate and discipline the young adult boys as well as minor girls that friendship as well as adolescent's consensual relationship are not protected by law and law presumes culpable mental state, where all the burden shifts on the young adult to prove that they had not committed any crime," it added.The court also observed that the trial was under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocity Act, where the law does not lay down any clutches of statutory presumption of criminality. It said that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the whole case has been "diverted to put the blame on the accused, where the police failed to protect the victim girl". "The parents failed to provide her safe environment and proper care and affection at home, which had forced her to go out of the house with the intention to commit suicide. In view of the evidence with the analysis and ...

Young Men Languishing In Jail As Laws Don't Approve Relationship With Girls Below 18 Yrs Even If Just Friendly: Gujarat High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags