Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Laxmibai, by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 278 of 1995 for the offence under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. The case involved the alleged procuration of a minor girl, Sushila, by Laxmibai, leading to her rape by co-accused Raju Rajput. On 23 July 1993, the day of the Nag Panchami festival, it was alleged that the appellant took Sushila from her residence in Rahul Nagar, Aurangabad, under the pretext of swinging, and brought her to a room in Jyoti Nagar where Raju Rajput forcibly committed rape. After the incident, the appellant brought Sushila back home and initially claimed that Sushila had fallen from a swing. Sushila was subsequently medically examined and the matter was reported to the police. The trial court convicted Laxmibai under Section 366A, but acquitted her of the charge under Section 376, which was only attributed to the co-accused. In appeal, the appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 366A, particularly the element of inducement with the requisite intent or knowledge. The appellant argued that there was no evidence that she had provoked or persuaded the prosecutrix to go to the place of occurrence for the purpose of illicit intercourse; rather, the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied her and the subsequent act of rape was committed by the co-accused without any instigation or facilitation by the appellant. The State supported the conviction, relying on the testimony of the prosecutrix and the link of circumstances. The court observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix, though claiming that the appellant had taken her to the spot and later pushed her inside the room, did not establish any active inducement or instigation for the purpose of forcing or seducing her to illicit intercourse. The medical history recorded by the doctor, as well as the initial statements made by the prosecutrix, did not implicate the appellant in any role of procuration; instead, the prosecutrix had stated that the incident happened while swinging with friends and that two youths had committed the act. The court noted material contradictions between the prosecution evidence and the medical case history, which cast serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecutrix's version in court. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had induced the minor girl with the intent or knowledge that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, as required under Section 366A. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment underscored that the mere act of accompanying a victim or being present at the scene is not sufficient to attract the penal provision of Section 366A IPC without evidence of active inducement and culpable mental state.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Offence of Procuration of Minor Girl - Section 366A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - To establish an offence under Section 366A IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused, by any means, induced a minor girl to go from any place with intent or knowledge that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Evidence showed the appellant accompanied the prosecutrix to a room where the co-accused committed rape, but there was no evidence of active inducement; the prosecutrix's own admissions and the medical history did not attribute any role to the appellant. Held, conviction was unsustainable and the appellant entitled to acquittal. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 366A IPC.
Law Points
- Section 366A IPC requires proof of active inducement and intent or knowledge that the minor girl will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse
- mere accompaniment or passive involvement is insufficient for conviction.
