love for PW4 and PW4 did not express any opinion on the subject. As per the prosecution case, PW4 was aged sixteen years ten months by the date of offence. Even though PW4 was a minor by the date of offence, she was having age of discretion. In case she intended to resist the alleged kidnap of her by A1 to A3, she could have done so and she would not have participated in the marriage proceedings. The prosecution though cited the pastor who performed marriage of A1 with PW4, did not examine him. Similarly, the prosecution did not exhibit marriage photos of A1 and PW4, inspite of filing the same along with the charge sheet in the lower Court. It appears that subsequently on pressure from her parents, PW4 turned round and gave evidence in the trial Court. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution did not make out a case of kidnapping herein, since PW4 attained sufficient age and acquired the power of discretion. There are no grounds to interfere with finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court.
