Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bhaiyya Subhash Panpatil, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, for offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for kidnapping and raping a minor girl. The prosecutrix, aged about 12-13 years, lived with her mother and siblings in Takarkheda village. On 22 September 2010, when her mother was away for work, the accused, a distant relative, came to her house and promised to marry her. He took her away in an auto-rickshaw to the house of his friend Walvi in Taloda, where they stayed from 22 to 25 September. On 23 September, when Walvi and his wife were absent, the accused raped the prosecutrix. The grandfather, Arjun, lodged a missing complaint on 23 September, and the police traced the accused and prosecutrix on 25 September. The prosecutrix was medically examined, and the ossification test estimated her age between 12-13 years. The trial court convicted the accused, and he appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the prosecutrix, which it found consistent and credible. The medical evidence corroborated the rape, showing rupture of hymen and vaginal injuries. The court held that the prosecutrix was a minor, and her consent was irrelevant. The promise of marriage was false, as the accused did not intend to marry her. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 363 IPC - Taking away a minor girl from lawful guardianship without consent - Accused took the 12-13 year old prosecutrix from her home on promise of marriage - Held that the act constitutes kidnapping as the girl was below 18 years and taken without guardian's consent (Paras 2-4, 10). B) Criminal Law - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Rape of a minor - Accused raped the prosecutrix in the house of his friend - Medical evidence showed rupture of hymen and vaginal injuries consistent with rape - Testimony of prosecutrix found credible and corroborated - Held that conviction for rape is proper (Paras 4, 11-13). C) Evidence Law - Age Determination - Ossification Test - Age of prosecutrix determined as 12-13 years based on ossification test and school record - Held that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of incident (Paras 2, 10). D) Criminal Law - Consent - False Promise of Marriage - Promise of marriage to a minor girl amounts to false promise vitiating any alleged consent - Held that consent is irrelevant as the girl was a minor and the promise was false (Paras 3, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Sections 363 and 376 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of the prosecutrix and medical reports.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence under Sections 363 and 376 IPC upheld.
Law Points
- Consent of a minor is no consent
- false promise of marriage vitiates consent
- testimony of prosecutrix alone sufficient for conviction if credible
- medical evidence corroborating rape
- age determination by ossification test
