ANVERSINH @ KIRANSINH FATESINH ZALA vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF HOME SECRETARIAT LAW SECRETARY SECRETARY — Crl.A. No. 1919/2010

Case under Section II-E. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010170032010

Filing Date

25-May-2010

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 1919/2010

Diary Number

17003/2010

Order Date

12-Jan-2021

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2021 INSC 16

Disposal Type

Partly Allowed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-E

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANVERSINH @ KIRANSINH FATESINH ZALA

    Adv. NARESH KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF HOME SECRETARIAT LAW SECRETARY SECRETARY

    Adv. ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Jan-2021

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 12-Jan-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 12-Jan-2021

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  5. 02-Sep-2020

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 02-Sep-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 02-Jul-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 04-Mar-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 04-Oct-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 14-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 25-May-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 1919/2010

  12. [ 2021 INSC 16 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala v. State of Gujarat Supreme Court Decision (12.01.2021): The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of appellant Anversinh under IPC Sections 363 and 366 (kidnapping for marriage), rejecting his argument that a consensual love affair negates kidnapping charges against a minor. The court held that a minor's consent is legally immaterial under Section 361 IPC—guardians hold exclusive authority over decisions concerning a minor's physical safety. However, the court reduced his sentence from five years to time already served, considering his young age (18-19 at incident), the non-violent nature of the offense, 22+ years elapsed since the incident, low recidivism risk, and equal social status between parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case