Vakul Kapoor vs. State
Background
In 2009, the appellant (then 18) was convicted for taking away a 14-year-old girl who went missing from home for two days, travelling with her to Manali, and was sentenced (already below the statutory minimum) for kidnapping and rape. The girl's own initial statements to police and doctors, and her later formal statement, told conflicting stories: some suggesting a consensual, ongoing relationship (including matching tattoos of each other's names), others alleging coercion. Seventeen years later, both the appellant and the young woman are separately married with their own families, and she told the court she no longer wished to pursue the case.
Decision Breakdown
The Court did not disturb the conviction itself, but reduced the sentence to time already served, noting no force or weapon was involved, both parties were very young at the time, the relationship showed genuine mutual involvement (evidenced by matching tattoos), the survivor herself no longer wanted to pursue the case, and 17 years had passed with the appellant now settled with a family, including a child born after IVF treatment. The Court also referenced ongoing judicial and legislative discussions about introducing a "Romeo-Juliet clause" exempting genuine adolescent relationships from strict statutory penalties.
Lesson Learnt
Where a case involving a minor's age turns out to involve a genuine, consensual adolescent relationship rather than predatory conduct, and decades have passed with both parties having moved on with their lives, courts can reduce punishment to time already served, even though the conviction itself (which turns solely on the survivor's age at the time) is not disturbed.