Abduction of minor not automatically an offence under section 366 IPC; intent must be proven: Chhatisgarh HC [Read Judgment]

Chhattisgarh: The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant judgment clarifying that not every abduction of a minor female can automatically be considered an offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal partly allowed a criminal appeal challenging a conviction under Sections 363, 366, 506 Part-2 of the IPC, and Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove specific intent beyond the mere act of abduction.

The bench observed, 

“Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal provision. It must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.”

Elaborating on the requirements for conviction under Section 366 IPC, the court stated, 

“In order to constitute an offence under Section 366 of the IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled her by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, and that such abduction took place with the intent that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction.”

Also Read: Uttarakhand HC seeks States response on arresting minors found dating [Read Order]

The court upheld the trial court’s finding that the victim was a minor, aged about 14 years at the time of the incident, based on school records. It also affirmed the conviction under Section 363 IPC for kidnapping, finding sufficient evidence that the appellant had taken the minor victim away on his motorcycle without her parents’ consent.

However, the court set aside the conviction under Section 366 IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, citing several discrepancies in the prosecution’s case. These included inconsistencies between the initial complaint and later statements, the absence of sexual assault allegations in the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, a medical examination report showing no signs of sexual intercourse, and a negative forensic science laboratory report for semen stains or human sperm.

Expressing its view on the evidence assessment, the court stated, 

“We are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed rape on the minor victim.”

Also Read: History of Constitutional And Legislative Bias Creating Disparity Among Majority and Minority

In conclusion, while partly allowing the appeal, the court observed that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as it relates to the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC—that the appellant has kidnapped the victim from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent and kept her with him for the whole night—but has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as it relates to the offences punishable under Section 366 of IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act—that the appellant has kidnapped the victim and committed penetrative sexual assault on the pretext of marriage with the victim.
 

[Read Judgment]