Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court acquitted a man previously convicted of kidnapping a minor girl under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant had challenged his 2013 conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Muzaffarpur, which sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹30,000.
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged by the victim’s father, who claimed that his 15-year-old daughter, while en route to school with her younger sister, was abducted by the appellant. The younger sister returned home in tears and narrated the incident. Based on this information, the father filed a complaint with the police.
The police recovered the girl and the appellant on the same day from Balia Chowk in Kurhani. The girl alleged that she was forcibly taken, had vermilion put on her head at a temple, and spent the night in fear. A medical examination assessed her age as between 15–16 years.
At trial, the prosecution presented 11 witnesses, including the victim, her parents, and the investigating officer. However, four independent witnesses were declared hostile, offering no support to the prosecution’s narrative. The key witnesses (victim, her parents, and sister) were deemed “interested witnesses,” and crucial inconsistencies surfaced in their statements. Notably, during cross-examination, several of them admitted that the victim had gone to her maternal grandmother’s house voluntarily.
The defense pointed out contradictions in the FIR and the testimonies, especially regarding whether the victim was forcibly taken or went on her own. The court observed that the prosecution failed to provide any conclusive or independent evidence proving coercion or kidnapping.
After a thorough review, the High Court held that the trial court had overlooked these inconsistencies and failed to apply the correct standards of criminal jurisprudence. The conviction was thus found unsustainable.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal convictions must be based on credible, consistent, and corroborative evidence. The court emphasized the need for independent witness testimony and cautioned against relying solely on interested parties. The verdict also highlights judicial sensitivity towards ensuring that minors are protected, but not at the cost of due process and evidentiary standards. For citizens, this decision reiterates the importance of fair trials and robust legal safeguards, especially in cases involving serious allegations like kidnapping of minors.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether the appellant was guilty of kidnapping a minor girl under Section 366A IPC
- Court’s Finding: No sufficient corroborative evidence; prosecution failed to prove coercion or kidnapping.
- Whether the prosecution witnesses were credible and their statements consistent
- Court’s Finding: Multiple contradictions and admissions that the girl went voluntarily weakened the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the trial court erred in its judgment
- Court’s Finding: Yes. It ignored discrepancies and failed to uphold principles of criminal jurisprudence.
- Final Decision: Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged from bail bond obligations.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Sudhir Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 2003(3) PCCR 85
- Unnamed Case, 2005(3) East Criminal Cases 256 Patna
Case Title
Dilip Thakur v. The State of Bihar
Case Number
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 360 of 2013
Citation(s)– 2025 (1) PLJR 178
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Advocate – for the Appellant
- Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 6, Advocate – for the Appellant
- Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP – for the State
Link to Judgment
MjQjMzYwIzIwMTMjMSNO-uVdSlG64Ygc=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.