The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man accused of kidnapping a minor girl, ruling that the girl had willingly left with him and was living with him as his wife. The Court found that the essential elements of taking or However, the petition was dismissed by the Tribunal, observing that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver. When challenged, the High Court upheld the rejection. Imperatively, at this stage, a plea was made by the claimants for instead treating their claim under Section 163A. However, the High Court, adhering to the decision in Deepal Girishbhai Soni, declined the same. Against this background, the matter came up before the Apex Court. At the outset, the Court, after perusing the aforementioned precedent, discussed the insertion of Section 163A under the Act. enticing a minor away from the lawful guardian were not met, leading to the acquittal. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the prosecution alleged that the Appellant along with his father and other relatives kidnapped the prosecutrix/minor girl from a village in February 1994. After search and investigation, the prosecutrix was found to reside with the Appellant in Dehradun. Against this backdrop, the FIR was registered against the Appellant for the alleged offences committed under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (rape) of the IPC. The trial court convicted the Appellant. In his appeal, the High Court acquitted him of the offence under Section 376 IPC but convicted him under Sections 363/366 IPC and sentenced to two years imprisonment. At the outset, the Judgment authored by Justice Gavai noted the inconsistencies between the prosecutrix's testimony. While she initially claimed she was kidnapped, her cross-examination revealed she went with the appellant willingly, traveled with him, and even admitted to signing marriage documents in Dehradun. She further admitted that she did not make any effort to raise any alarm when she was travelling in the bus. A perusal of testimony of the prosecutrix itself would reveal that she had gone on her own accord with the appellant herein. Therefore, the defence of the appellant herein that he had married the prosecutrix and not only that but also that the marriage was certified before the competent authority at Dehradun and thereafter they were living as husband and wife at Dehradun is a plausible defence. The Court also noted that there were conflicting evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix and hence chose to give the benefit of doubt to the accused.