*Tilku @ Tilak Singh V. The State of Uttarakhand (2025 SC)* 1. The prosecutrix had voluntarily gone along with the accused, traveled in buses to various places for around 20 days and also resided as husband and wife at Dehradun. 2. ⁠A perusal of testimony of the prosecutrix itself would reveal that she had gone on her own accord with the accused. Therefore, the defence of the accused that he had married the prosecutrix and not only that but also that the marriage was certified before the competent authority at Dehradun and thereafter they were living as husband and wife at Dehradun is a plausible defence. 3. ⁠In view of the 2 conflicting medical opinions regarding the age of the prosecutrix, the benefit of doubt lies in the favour of the accused. 4. ⁠Even if the age of the prosecutrix is believed to be between 16-18 years, still the offence of kidnapping u/s. 363 & 366 IPC is not made out as the prosecutrix was very much in the age of understanding as to what was right and wrong for her. And she had gone willingly with the accused. 5. ⁠SC relied upon the landmark judgment of *S Vardarajan V. State of Madras (1964 SC)*. SC emphasised that for the offence of kidnapping, “taking” or “enticing” away a minor out of the keeping of a lawful guardian is an essential ingredient u/s. 361 IPC. In the present case, the role played by the accused does not amount to “taking”.