Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sanjay Jagannath Ursal, was convicted by the IV Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on June 30, 2003 in Sessions Case No.210 of 2002 for offences under Sections 363, 366-A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 376 IPC. The appellant was accused No.1, while accused No.2 (Sou.Amita @ Sushila Jagannath Ursal) was acquitted. The prosecution case was that the appellant kidnapped and raped the prosecutrix, Shubhangi Shivaji Chougule, who was alleged to be below 16 years of age. The sole issue argued in the appeal was that the Trial Court's finding that the prosecutrix was below 16 years was manifestly wrong. The appellant contended that if the prosecutrix was above 16, she was a consenting party, and no offence would be made out. The High Court examined the evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix and found it inconsistent and not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned A.P.P. also fairly conceded that the conviction under Section 366-A IPC was not sustainable as that section applies to persons who induce a minor for prostitution or illicit intercourse with another, not to the rapist himself. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Age of Prosecutrix - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 363, 366-A, 376 - The sole question was whether the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove her age beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence was inconsistent. Held that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, and the conviction under Sections 363, 366-A, and 376 IPC was set aside (Paras 1-4). B) Criminal Law - Section 366-A IPC - Applicability - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 366-A - The learned A.P.P. fairly conceded that Section 366-A IPC cannot be invoked against the appellant who himself committed rape on the minor, as the section is aimed at persons who induce a minor for prostitution or illicit intercourse with another person. Held that the conviction under Section 366-A IPC was unsustainable (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age is manifestly wrong, and if so, whether the appellant can be convicted for rape and kidnapping.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Age of prosecutrix must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Benefit of doubt in age determination
- Consent of minor irrelevant if below 16
- Section 366-A IPC not applicable to rapist himself
