Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Vijay Bhika Dive, the respondent-accused, by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Session Case No.201 of 2013. The respondent was acquitted of offences under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366A (inducement for prostitution) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The case arose from an incident on 21st February 2013, when the victim, a 14-year-old girl, was allegedly taken by the respondent from her brother's house in Kochargaon. The victim's father lodged a complaint alleging that the respondent kidnapped her and took her to a hotel where he touched her inappropriately. The prosecution examined several witnesses, including the victim, her father, and her brother. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the victim's testimony inconsistent and lacking corroboration. The High Court, in appeal, upheld the acquittal, noting that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The court observed that the victim's statements were contradictory regarding whether she went voluntarily or was forced, and there was no evidence of inducement for prostitution. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 363 IPC - Prosecution failed to prove that the accused took away a minor girl from lawful guardianship without consent - Victim's testimony inconsistent regarding whether she went voluntarily or was forced - Held that acquittal was proper as prosecution did not establish essential ingredients (Paras 1-30). B) Criminal Law - Inducement for Prostitution - Section 366A IPC and Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - No evidence that accused induced victim for prostitution - Victim's statement that accused took her to a hotel and touched her inappropriately does not amount to inducement for prostitution - Held that acquittal on these charges is justified (Paras 1-30). C) Evidence Law - Testimony of Minor Victim - Inconsistencies and contradictions - Victim's testimony contradicted by her own previous statements and other witnesses - Court held that such unreliable testimony cannot form basis for conviction (Paras 1-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent-accused kidnapped a minor girl and induced her for prostitution under Sections 363, 366A IPC and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld
- benefit of doubt
- prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt
- inconsistencies in victim's testimony
- lack of corroboration
- no proof of inducement for prostitution
