The Gujarat High Court set aside kidnapping and atrocity convictions against two young men who only helped a distressed girl. The Court warned that rigid age-based laws are sending innocent young men to jail even for friendly or humanitarian conduct.
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad has delivered a detailed judgment examining a case where two young men were Jailed for kidnapping, abduction for marriage, and an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After closely analysing the evidence, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and overturned the conviction.
The case arose from an incident dated 23.03.2004, where the complainant alleged that his daughter was taken away from lawful guardianship by the accused on the pretext of marriage and was moved across several cities.
The trial court had convicted the accused under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act. Both accused challenged this decision before the High Court.
The prosecution claimed that the girl was a minor. However, the High Court found serious flaws in the documents relied upon to prove her age. The Court noted that the birth certificate produced did not match the official birth register. The officer from the Birth and Death Registration Office clearly stated that the entry number relied upon did not belong to the victim and recorded the birth of a different child altogether.
The Court clearly observed that “PW12 clearly stated that in November 1986, the birth with the name of the victim had not been registered” and further held that “the Birth Certificate relied upon by the prosecution cannot be said to be true and reliable.”
The medical evidence also did not support the prosecution. The doctor from the maternity hospital admitted that original records had been destroyed and that the certificate produced did not conclusively establish that the girl referred to was the victim. The Court held that “the Doctor too could not prove the date of birth of the victim girl.”
The school leaving certificate was also rejected as proof of age. Relying on settled Supreme Court law, the High Court observed that only a matriculation certificate or a certificate from the first school attended could be relied upon. The Court categorically held that:
“The School Leaving Certificate in view of the provision of law would not be an admissible evidence to determine the age of the victim.”
Importantly, the Investigating Officer admitted that the girl herself stated her age as 18 years during investigation. Despite this, no medical age determination test was conducted. The Court criticised the investigation and noted that:
“The Investigating Officer failed to verify the authenticity of the Birth Certificate and the Leaving Certificate.”
The Court then examined whether the girl was kidnapped or wrongfully confined. From the victim’s own testimony, it emerged that she had left home after being beaten by her brother and had gone to the Narmada Canal with the intention of committing suicide. The police had found her there and dropped her at a public place, from where she met the accused.
The victim admitted that she travelled with the accused across Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat, and Mumbai, stayed in hotels and guest houses, watched movies, signed hotel registers herself, and moved freely in public places. She also admitted that there was no sexual assault or exploitation.
The Court recorded that “the total sequence of travelling does not show that the victim was forcefully restrained” and further noted that “she was knowingly and willingly accompanying the accused.”
On the allegation of abduction for marriage, the Court found no consistent evidence. The victim’s statement that one accused wanted to marry her was not supported by independent evidence or police records. The Court observed that “the fact that Amit wanted to marry the victim does not get proved from the record.”
With respect to the charge under the Atrocities Act, the Court found that the allegation of assault was vague and unsupported. There was no medical examination, no immediate complaint, and no corroboration. The Court held that:
“This allegation of beating appears to have been brought later on to invoke the provisions of the Atrocity Act.”
After analysing the law under Sections 361, 363, and 366 IPC, the Court reiterated that for kidnapping from lawful guardianship, minority must be strictly proved. The Court concluded that:
“The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident.”
Ultimately, the Gujarat High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court allowed both criminal appeals and set aside the judgment of the trial court, holding that suspicion, unreliable documents, and moral assumptions cannot replace legal proof.
This judgment stands as a reminder that criminal law demands strict evidence, careful investigation, and objective evaluation, especially when young lives and long-term consequences are involved.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | What the Law Means (Simple Explanation) | How the Court Applied It in This Case |
| IPC Section 363 | Punishment for kidnapping from lawful guardianship | Court held that prosecution failed to prove the girl was a minor, which is a mandatory requirement |
| IPC Section 366 | Kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel marriage | Court found no proof of force, inducement, or intent to compel marriage |
| IPC Section 361 | Definition of kidnapping from lawful guardianship | Court reiterated that minority of the girl must be strictly proved |
| SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(xi) | Assault or use of force on SC/ST woman to outrage modesty | Allegation of assault was found uncorroborated and introduced later |
| Indian Evidence Act Section 35 | Admissibility of public documents like birth certificates | Court held birth certificate unreliable despite being a public document |
| Juvenile Justice Rules, Rule 12(3) | Procedure to determine age | Court applied same principles to assess victim’s age and rejected documents |
| IPC Sections 339 & 340 | Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement | Court found no confinement as the girl moved freely in public places |
| IPC Section 346 | Wrongful confinement in secret | Held not applicable as movements were open and visible |
Case Details
- Case Title: Rohan Kiritbhai Desai vs State of Gujarat, (with Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 2006 – Amit Devendrakumar Parmar vs State of Gujarat)
- Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
- Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Gita Gopi
- Date of Judgment: 29 January 2026
- Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2006, and Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 2006
- Counsels
- For Appellant (Cr.A. 446/2006): Mr. Vijay Patel, for M/s. H.L. Patel Advocates
- For Appellant (Cr.A. 500/2006): Mr. Saurabh J. Mehta For State: Mr. Rohankumar H. Raval, Additional Public Prosecutor
Key Takeaways
- Criminal law cannot run on assumptions. When the prosecution fails to strictly prove age, consent, or force, men cannot be convicted on sympathy or social pressure alone.
- Public documents like birth certificates are not automatic truth. Courts will reject them if the source, entry, or verification is doubtful, protecting men from fabricated age claims.
- A woman’s voluntary movement, travel, and conduct in public spaces matters. If evidence shows free will, the narrative of kidnapping or confinement collapses.
- Atrocity Act provisions cannot be triggered casually. Allegations of assault must be clear, immediate, and supported by evidence, not added later to strengthen a weak case.
- When police ignore verification, medical tests, and contradictions, men pay the price for systemic failure.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.