“Had it been so that the names would have determined the personality, then every Ramchandra in India would have been upholder of values and would have been Maryadapurshottam. All this goes on to show that the names, however fancy, ideal or meaningful they are, it is not the name but the person who matters,” the July 22 order said.

Quoting English playwright Shakespeare, it added:  “What is in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”

The case arose after a woman filed an FIR on April 6, 2006, alleging that her teenage daughter went missing from her house two days ago. On April 9, 2006, the girl’s brother and uncle informed the police they had come to know about the whereabouts of the girl and the accused who allegedly kidnapped her.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav said that if the girl was under some kind of coercion, she had ‘all the reasons to raise alarm and save herself.’

The girl and the accused were purportedly caught in a police ‘raid’ conducted by a couple of policemen along with her brother and uncle. Later, based on the girl’s statement, a chargesheet was filed against the accused for kidnapping and rape. He was convicted by the trial court based on the statements of 15 witnesses and was sentenced to seven years’ jail.

‘No offence made out’

Advocates Hans Raj Singh and Gaurav Nagar, appearing for the convict, argued that there were inconsistencies in the evidence. They claimed that since the girl was an adult and had herself accompanied the convict, no offence of kidnapping was made out.

Advocate Naval Kishore Jha, appearing for the state and representing the girl, along with advocates Astha and Megha Singh, submitted that the evidence clearly indicated the girl was kidnapped by the man and that there was no dispute about his identity, date or the place of incident. Pointing to the forensic evidence, counsels also said that the girl had been sexually assaulted.

Girl appears to be ‘willing party’: HC

The high court noted that the man’s argument that the girl “herself” went with him had some “force” as the alleged incident had taken place in broad daylight, they both travelled in public transport and visited a crowded temple which had considerable police presence. Following calculations, the court concluded that the girl was 18.4 years old at the time of the incident.

The high court said that if the girl was not a “willing party or was not under some kind of force or coercion, then she had all the reasons to raise alarm and save herself. What made her keep quiet is anybody’s guess, as it is not that the appellant (convict) had threatened her with any harm or with any weapon.”

The judge observed that the girl admitted she was taken to a temple on the occasion of Navaratri and it was full of people. According to the court, a case of kidnapping was not made out because, “if the victim was being moved or taken away against her will or without her consent, then she should have raised alarm and attracted the attention of the people so as to save herself from the clutches of the appellant (convict), especially when she had ample opportunities and was not under any kind of threat etc.”

The court said it was obvious that the girl was not being forced, and if at all some force was there, it was not constant as the girl had enough opportunities to act against the man if she had not consented to his actions. During the appeal, she also stated that she did not want any action against the convict as she had herself accompanied him and that there was no fault on his part.

The high court eventually acquitted the man, pointing to doubts on the allegation of rape due to lack of conclusive scientific evidence. It also observed that there was no evidence of the resistance or protest one would expect if the girl had not been a willing party.