Introduction 

• This case raises pertinent questions regarding the interpretation of consent in cases involving minors and the appropriate sentencing in such matters, particularly when consensual relationships are at issue. 

Facts 

• On 14^th May 1998, the complainant's 16-year-old daughter (the prosecutrix) did not return home from work. 
• The complainant learned his daughter was last seen with the appellant, Anversinh, coming out of a vacant bungalow. 
• A police complaint was filed on 16th May 1998. The police located the appellant and prosecutrix on a farm near Modasa on 21^st May 1998. 
• The prosecution alleged the minor prosecutrix was forcibly taken by the appellant with the intention of marriage and subjected to sexual intercourse against her will. 
• The prosecutrix admitted during cross-examination to being in love with the appellant and having had consensual sexual intercourse with him previously. 
• The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC, sentencing him to 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment respectively. 
• On appeal, the High Court overturned the conviction under Section 376 (rape) but upheld the kidnapping charges under Sections 363 and 366, maintaining the 5-year imprisonment sentence. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether a consensual affair can be a defense against the charge of kidnapping a minor? 
• Whether the punishment awarded is just, given the unique circumstances of the case? 

Observations 

• The Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, stating that consent of a minor is immaterial for the charge of kidnapping. 
• However, the Court reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant, citing several factors:  
  • No force was used in the act of kidnapping 
  • The young age of the accused at the time of the incident 
  • More than 22 years had passed since the incident 
  • It was a crime of passion with no other criminal antecedents 
  • Both parties belonged to similar social classes 

Conclusion 

The appeal was partly allowed, with the conviction upheld but the sentence reduced to time served. The appellant was set free, and bail bonds discharged.