Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the order of the Revisional Court confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for allegedly abducting a minor girl with the intention of marrying her. The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court. The facts of the case are that on 03.05.2001, the appellant allegedly forced the victim into a jeep and took her to three different locations within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The victim escaped after about two months and returned home, after which the First Information Report was registered. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses, including the victim (PW 7) and her parents (PWs 1 and 2). The victim deposed that the appellant had developed a friendly relationship with her family and had sought her hand in marriage, which was denied. Despite the appellant being married, he allegedly took her away with a desire to marry her. The victim stated that she was taken to Bangalore, Vizag, and Vijayawada, and that she escaped from the appellant's clutches at Vijayawada. However, in cross-examination, the victim contradicted herself, stating that she had no prior acquaintance with the appellant and did not raise a hue and cry during the journey. The medical evidence regarding the victim's age was based on an ossification test, which opined her age to be between 16 to 17 years. The radiologist was not examined, and the radiology report was not marked. The Supreme Court held that the conviction under Section 366-A IPC was unsustainable because there was no allegation of any sexual advance or likelihood of illicit intercourse, which is a necessary ingredient of the offence. The Court also found that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority beyond reasonable doubt, as the ossification test had a margin of error of two years. The evidence of the victim was inconsistent and lacked a ring of truth. The Court noted that the victim had travelled with the appellant voluntarily and did not attempt to escape despite opportunities. The Court acquitted the appellant of all charges and allowed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abduction - Section 366-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ingredients - The prosecution must prove that the accused induced a minor girl to go from any place with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. In the absence of any allegation of sexual advance or likelihood of illicit intercourse, the conviction under Section 366-A is unsustainable (Paras 2-3). B) Evidence - Age Determination - Ossification Test - Margin of Error - The ossification test has a margin of error of two years on either side. A medical opinion that the victim's age is between 16 to 17 years does not conclusively prove minority when the alleged offence requires the victim to be under 18 years. Non-examination of the radiologist and non-marking of the radiology report further weakens the prosecution case (Para 13). C) Criminal Law - Consent - Minor Victim - Even if consent is present, it is no defence if the victim is a minor. However, the prosecution must first prove minority beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the evidence of age was insufficient (Paras 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 366-A IPC is sustainable when there is no allegation of sexual advance or illicit intercourse, and the victim's minority is not conclusively proved.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. Bail bonds, if any, were cancelled. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Ingredients of Section 366-A IPC
- Proof of age in criminal cases
- Ossification test margin of error
- Consent of minor not a defence
- Necessity of corroboration in abduction cases
