#kidnapping

The Allahabad High Court upheld a conviction for kidnapping and rape, ruling that a minor's consent is legally irrelevant under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, that the prosecutrix's uncorroborated testimony suffices for conviction, and that an appellate court cannot remedy the trial court's omission to impose a mandatory fine.

Allahabad HC acquits appellants in kidnapping and rape case, citing contradictions, lack of evidence, and consensual relationship. Key takeaways on investigation standards.

Karnataka High Court ruled that conviction under POCSO Act Sections 4/6 and IPC 376 requires corroborative medical evidence, even if victim testimony is credible. The court acquitted the accused of sexual assault charges but upheld kidnapping conviction under IPC 363, modifying the sentence to Rs. 3,00,000 compensation. This sets a precedent for strict evidentiary standards in sexual offence cases.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that Section 366A IPC mandates proof of intent for illicit intercourse to sustain a conviction. Absent such intent, the offence is reduced to Section 363 IPC (kidnapping), leading to a reduced sentence of 1.5 years. This holding clarifies the mens rea requirement under Section 366A, impacting prosecutions involving minor girls.

Allahabad HC granted bail in a kidnapping case after the victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. contradicted the FIR, affirming that pre-trial liberty must prevail when evidence undermines the prosecution's case. The ruling underscores the judiciary's duty to prevent wrongful incarceration where victim testimony does not support the allegations.