Two decades after a criminal case upended their lives, the Gujarat High Court has wiped the slate clean for two men accused of kidnapping a teenage girl, concluding that they were not offenders at all but bystanders who stepped in when someone needed help.
Setting aside a conviction that dated back to 2006, the Court found that the men had acted as protectors to a deeply distressed teenager who had left home with suicidal thoughts. There was no force, coercion, or inducement involved—only an attempt to keep her safe.
Justice Gita Gopi, while allowing the appeals, made it clear that the case was not a validation of adolescent friendships or informal arrangements involving minors. The law, the Court cautioned, does not recognise such relationships as a defence and places a heavy responsibility on young adults to demonstrate their innocence if accusations arise.
The case traced back to March 2004, when the girl’s father alleged that his minor daughter had been abducted and taken across multiple cities, including Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Surat and Mumbai. The two men were later convicted by a fast-track court under kidnapping-related provisions and sentenced to prison terms and fines.
On appeal, the High Court took a closer look—and found serious gaps.
First, the prosecution failed to conclusively establish that the girl was under 18 at the time. Her birth certificate, school records and medical evidence did not align, and the original birth register was never produced. With such inconsistencies, the Court held that her age had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
More importantly, the girl’s own testimony told a different story from the prosecution’s version. She said she had not been assaulted, confined, or threatened. She moved freely through public spaces, stayed at guesthouses, and had multiple chances to approach authorities. At one point, when stopped by police, she introduced herself as the sister of one of the accused.
The Court noted that she had left home due to emotional distress and family circumstances, not because she was lured away. In fact, she had interacted with police even before meeting the accused, yet was not returned to her parents at that stage.
“The evidence suggests that the girl walked out of her home in distress,” the judgment observed, adding that her parents had failed to provide a safe and supportive environment.
As for the accused, the Court was blunt:
“Both appear to have played the role of good samaritans, but landed up in jail.”
One of the men arranged accommodation; the other helped with money and basic needs. Neither, the Court said, seemed to have any idea that trying to protect a vulnerable teenager could lead to years behind bars.
In closing the long-running case, the High Court reiterated a broader warning: informal attempts to help minors, however well-intentioned, can carry grave legal consequences. Parents and young adults alike must understand that the law presumes culpability in such situations—and ignorance offers no shield.
With that, the criminal proceedings that began more than twenty years ago were finally brought to an end.
