11 February 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

In Akula Raghuram v/s The State of Andhra., the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of an individual accused of abducting a minor girl (under Section 366-A of the IPC). The Court found the prosecution's case severely lacking in evidence. The alleged victim, a major at the time of the incident, had a prior friendly relationship with the accused's family. The prosecution's narrative of a forced abduction for marriage was deemed unbelievable, particularly given the victim's own testimony and the two-month gap between the alleged abduction and the filing of the FIR.

Key weaknesses in the prosecution's case included:

• Lack of Evidence of Force or Coercion: The victim's testimony regarding the "abduction" was inconsistent. She admitted to willingly accompanying the accused for a significant period and made no attempt to escape or raise alarm. This cast doubt on the claim of forced abduction.
• Inconsistencies and Contradictions: The testimonies of the victim, her parents, and other witnesses contained numerous inconsistencies, further weakening the prosecution's narrative.
• Failure to Establish Minority: The medical evidence regarding the victim's age was inconclusive. While a medical officer estimated her age to be between 16 and 17, the radiologist's report on which this estimate was based was not presented in court. The Court emphasized the possibility of a two-year margin of error in ossification tests, meaning the victim could have been 18 or older at the time of the alleged offense.
• Missing Links in Evidence: Crucial evidence, such as the registration details of the vehicle allegedly used in the abduction and the identification of the driver, was not presented. The location of the alleged abduction and the mechanic shed where the vehicle was supposedly parked were also not properly investigated or documented.
• Consent Implied: The Court noted that the victim, despite knowing the accused was married, did not object to his marriage proposal on that ground, suggesting consent to travel with him.

Based on the cumulative effect of these evidentiary deficiencies, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted.