(1)criapl466.16
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
BENCHATAURANGABAD
CRIMINALAPPEALNO.466OF2016
BhagwatMunjabhauHoge,…APPELLANT
Age-24years,Occu-Driver,
R/o.Nagarjawala,Tq.Manwat,
Dist.Parbhani
VERSUS
1.TheStateofMaharashtra…RESPONDENTS
throughPoliceStationManwat,
Tq.Manwat,Dist.Parbhani
2.DinkarS/o.BaburaoHoge,
Age-Major,Occu-Agri,
R/o.Nagarjawala,Tq.Manwat,
Dist.Parbhani
Mr.KailasB.Jadhav,Advocatefortheappellant
Mr.P.N.Kutti,APPfortherespondent/State
Mr.HemantU.Dhage,AdvocateforrespondentNo.2
CORAM:S.M.GAVHANE,J.
RESERVEDON:05.04.2019
PRONOUNCEDON:07.06.2019
JUDGMENT:
.Bythisappealtheappellant/accusedchallenges
thejudgmentandorderdated15.12.2015passedbythe
AdditionalSessionsJudge,ParbhaniinSpecialCase
(POCSO)No.14of2014therebyconvictinghimforthe
followingdifferentoffencesunderSectiontheIndianPenalCode
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(2)criapl466.16
(hereinafterreferredtoas’theSectionIPC’)andtheProtection
ofChildrenfromSexualOffencesAct(hereinafter
referredtoas’thePOCSOAct’).
a]Hewassentencedtosufferrigorousimprisonmentfor
fiveyearsandtopayafineofRs.5,000/-,indefaultof
paymentoffineamounttosuffersimpleimprisonmentfor
threemonthsfortheoffencepunishableunderSection
366-AoftheIPC.
b]Hewassentencedtosufferrigorousimprisonmentfor
10yearsandtopayafineofRs.10,000/-,indefaultof
paymentoffinetosuffersimpleimprisonmentforsix
monthsfortheoffenceunderSection376oftheIPC.
c]Hewassentencedtosufferrigorousimprisonmentfor
tenyearsandtopayafineofRs.10,000/-,indefaultof
paymentoffinetosuffersimpleimprisonmentforsix
monthsfortheoffenceunderSection6ofthePOCSOAct.
d]TheappellantwasgivensetoffunderSection428of
theCodeofCriminalProcedurefortheperiodfrom
12.12.2013to29.01.2014andfrom02.08.2014tilldateof
judgmenti.e.15.12.2015.
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(3)criapl466.16
2.Theappealwasadmittedon08.08.2016.Asthe
appellantisinjailandhisapplicationseekingbailwas
rejectedon16.09.2016,theappealwasfixedforfinal
hearing.
3.Factsoftheprosecutioncase,inshort,areas
under:-
A]TheinformantDinkarHoge(PW-1)fatherofthe
victimgirl(PW-2)lodgedthecomplaint(Exh.13)inthe
PoliceStation,Manwat,Dist.Parbhanicontendingthat
thevictimgirlaged16yearswasstudyingin11thstdat
Manwatattherelevanttimeofincident.Itwasalleged
thaton03.12.2013atabout08.00p.m.aftertakingmeals
heandhisfamilymemberswenttosleep.Atthattimethe
victimgirltookhismobileforcharging.Thereafter,at
about03.00a.m.whenwifeoftheinformantwokeup,it
wasnoticedthatthevictimgirlwasnotinthehouse.
Hiswifetoldthesaidfacttotheinformant.Thereafter,
informant,hisbrotherShivaji,uncleRambhauandShamrao
Dengdetooksearchofthevictimgirl,butshewasnot
found.
B]Itisfurthercaseoftheprosecutionthatin
themorningatabout06.00a.m.informantfoundhis
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(4)criapl466.16
mobileoutsidethedoorandsawthattherewerecallson
hismobilefrommobileNo.9011415927atabout00.06
hours.Afterenquiryhecametoknowthatthesaidmobile
numberisofappellant/accused.Theinformantmadean
enquirywiththeparentsoftheappellantinrespectof
mobileandhecametoknowthatthesaidmobileisofthe
appellant.Fatheroftheappellanttoldthatthe
appellantisnotathome.Aftercallingonhismobile,it
wasnoticedthatthesaidmobilewasswitchedoff.The
informantascertainedthattheappellanthaskidnapped
thevictimgirl.Thereafter,hewenttothepolice
stationandlodgedthecomplaintasabove.Treatingitas
FIRpoliceregisteredcrimeNo.199/2013on04.12.2013
againsttheappellantfortheoffencepunishableunder
Section366-AoftheIPCandtheinvestigationwas
commenced.
C]On13.12.2013theinformantcametoknowfrom
thenoticeofPoliceStation,Manwatthatthevictimgirl
isincustodyofpolice.Afterenquirywithhershe
informedhimthaton03.12.2013theappellantkidnapped
herbygivingherpromiseofmarriagewithher.She
furtherinformedthattheappellanthadtakenherto
KardeShivar,Tq.Shirur,Dist.Pune.Hetookoneroomon
rentandtoldtoSunilJagdaleowneroftheroomthat
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(5)criapl466.16
theyarehusbandandwife.Shealsoinformedthatthey
residedtheretill11.12.2013andthattheappellantwas
misguidingherthattheywillgetmarryandhecommitted
sexualintercoursewithherfor4to5times.Thereafter,
thepolicehadbroughtthemtothepolicestation,
Manwat.
D]DuringtheinvestigationoffencesunderSection
376oftheIPCandunderSection6ofthePOCSOActwere
addedandaftercompletionoftheinvestigation,the
charge-sheetwassubmittedinthecourtofJMFC,Manwat,
whocommittedthecasetotheSessionsCourt,Parbhanias
theoffencesagainsttheappellantwereexclusively
triablebytheSessionsCourtbeingaSpecialCourt.
E]Chargewasframedagainsttheappellant/accused
fortheoffencepunishableunderSection366-A,Section376of
theIPCandunderSection6ofthePOCSOAct.Hepleaded
notguiltytothechargeandclaimedtobetried.
F]Theprosecutionhasexaminedfollowing9
witnessesbesidesthedocumentaryevidencereferredin
paragraphNo.9ofthejudgmentofthetrialCourtto
provethechargeagainsttheappellant.
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(6)criapl466.16
1.DinkarBaburaoHoge-informant/fatherofvictim
2.DurgaD/o.DinkarHoge-Victim
3.JankiramS/o.SopanraoMorey-witness
4.SunilS/o.PrabhuJagdale-Witness
5.BalajiS/o.SaudagarJadhav-CarrierofMuddemal
6.Dr.DeepaliD/o.ShivajiraoShinde-MedicalOfficer
7.PradeepkumarNamdeoraoJondhale-Investigating
Officer.
8.Dr.Md.FaizalMd.RazaluRahema-MedicalOfficer
9.Dr.SudamTulshiramMehate-MedicalOfficer
G]Thereafter,statementoftheappellantunder
Section313oftheCodeofCriminalProcedurewas
recorded.Hedeniedtohavecommittedtheoffenceswith
whichhewascharged.Hisdefencewasthatthevictimwas
majoratthetimeofincidentandsexualintercourseis
committedwithherconsent.Theappellant/accused
examinedhimselfonoathatExh.69.
H]Consideringtheevidenceadducedbythe
prosecutionandthedefenceoftheappellantthelearned
judgeofthetrialCourthasheldthattheprosecution
hasprovedtheoffencesagainsttheappellantwithwhich
hewaschargedandconvictedandsentencedhimbythe
impugnedjudgmentandorderasmentionedintheopening
paraofthisjudgment.Therefore,thisappealbythe
appellant.
4.IhaveheardMr.Jadhav,learnedcounselforthe
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(7)criapl466.16
appellant,Mr.Kutti,learnedAPPforrespondent/Stateand
Mr.Dhage,learnedcounselforrespondentNo.2the
informantandwiththeirassistanceIhaveperusedthe
evidenceadducedbytheprosecution,defenceandimpugned
judgmentandorder.
5.Mr.Jadhav,learnedcounselforthe
appellant/accusedhassubmittedthatageofthevictim
girlonthedateofincidentwasmorethan16yearsand
shewasmajor.Shestayedwiththeappellantfrom
03.12.2013to11.12.2013.But,shedidnotmakecomplaint
againsttheappellant.Assuch,accordingtothelearned
counselfortheappellanttherewasloveaffairbetween
victimgirlandtheappellant.Itissubmittedthatthe
evidenceofPWs-1to3,6and9andthedefencewitness
ismaterialontheageofthevictimgirl.Accordingto
thelearnedcounselaspertheevidenceofHeadmaster
(PW-3)dateofbirthofthevictimgirlis08.07.1997and
thedateofincidentis03.12.2013.Thusonthedateof
incidentageofthevictimgirlwas16years4months25
days.ThevictimgirlwasadmittedintheschoolofPW-3
Headmasterinthe7thstd.Priortothesaidschoolshe
wasadmittedintheZillaParishadSchool,Nagarjawalain
the1ststd.Admittedlytheprosecutionhasnotexamined
HeadmasterofZillaParishadSchoolatNagarjawala.In
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(8)criapl466.16
theabsenceofevidenceofHeadmasterofZillaParishad
Schoolitcannotbesaidthatdateofbirthi.e.
08.07.1997deposedbytheHeadmaster(PW-3)iscorrect
andauthenticatedbirthdateofthevictimgirl.Itis
submittedbythelearnedcounselfortheappellantthat
ossificationwascarriedbyPW-9andRadiologicalopinion
asperExh.65isthatageoftheprosecutrixwas15to
16.5years.Thus,accordingtothelearnedcounselfor
theappellanttheprosecutionhasnotprovedthatthe
victimgirlwasbelow16yearsandbelow18yearsto
attracttheoffencesallegedagainsttheappellant.Itis
submittedthattheappellanthasexaminedhimselfas
defencewitnessandonthebasisofsaidevidenceitis
provedthatthevictimgirlwas18years.Thus,itis
submittedthattheprosecutionhasnotprovedtheageof
thevictimgirlbelow16years.
6.Mr.Jadhav,learnedcounselfortheappellant
thussubmittedthatageofthevictimgirlwasmorethan
16.5yearsandhenceherconsentwasmaterialandhence
nooffenceunderSection376oftheIPCismadeout
againsttheappellant.Soalso,itissubmittedthatthe
victimgirlleftherhouseatherownandaccompaniedthe
appellantandhencenooffenceunderSection366-AIPCis
attracted.Soalso,noingredientsofoffenceunder
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(9)criapl466.16
Section366-AoftheIPChavebeenprovedbythe
prosecution.Itissubmittedthatasthevictimgirlwas
notbelow16yearspresumptionunderSection29ofthe
POCSOActcannotberaisedinfavouroftheprosecution.
Thus,accordingtothelearnedcounselfortheappellant
theimpugnedconvictionandsentencerecordedagainstthe
appellantisnotsustainableandthesameisliabletobe
quashedandsetasidebyallowingtheappealandthe
appellantmaybeacquittedoftheoffencesforwhichhe
hasbeenconvictedandsentencedbytheimpugned
judgment.
7.Mr.Jadhav,learnedcounselfortheappellant
alternativelysubmittedthatiftheappellantisnot
acquittedoftheoffencesforwhichhehasbeen
convicted,thesentenceimposeduponhimbereducedto
periodi.e.4years9monthsand19daysundergonebyhim
asthevictimhasalreadymarriedandtheappellantwas
youngboyof23yearswhentheoffencewascommittedand
itisthecasearisingoutoftheloveaffair.
8.Mr.Jadhav,learnedcounselfortheappellantto
supporthissubmissionshasrelieduponthefollowing
decisions:
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(10)criapl466.16
a]InthecaseofKundanS/o.NanajiPendorVSThe
StateofMaharashtra2017ALLMR(Cri)1137inparagraph
Nos.11and13itwasobservedasunder:
“11.Sincetheappellanthasbeenchargedwithhaving
committedoffenceunderSections3(a),5(j)(ii)and5(1)oftheActof
2002,asperChargeatExh.4,itwouldbenecessarytofirstrecorda
findingastotheageof”S”.AsperprovisionsofSection2(1)(d)ofthe
saidAct,achildmeansapersonbelowtheageofeighteenyears.As
notedabove,theprosecutrixhadstatedonoaththatherdateofbirth
was5thJanuary,1997.Thereisnocross-examination,whatsoever,to
thisspecificassertionmadebytheprosecutrixinherexamination-in-
chief.Hersaidstatementhasgonetotallyunchallenged.Itisasettled
positionoflawthatifawitnessisnotcross-examinedonaparticular
portionofherdepositioninherExamination-in-chief,saidstatementis
requiredtobeacceptedasthesameisnotchallengedbythedefence.
ReferenceinthisregardcanbemadetotheobservationsoftheHon’ble
SupremeCourtinParagraphs13and14ofitsdecisioninStateofUPVs
NaharSingh(dead)others[(1998)3SCC861]:[1998ALLMR(Cri)
1308(SC)]whicharequotedbelow:
13.ItmaybenotedherethatthatpartofthestatementofPW-
1wasnotcross-examinedbytheaccused.Intheabsenceofcross-
examinationontheexplanationofdelay,theevidencePW-1
remainedunchallengedandoughttohavebeenbelievedbythe:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(11)criapl466.16HighCourt.Section138oftheEvidenceActconfersavaluable
rightofcross-examiningthewitnesstenderedinevidencebythe
oppositeparty.ThescopeofthatprovisionsisenlargedbySection
146oftheEvidenceActbyaallowingawitnesstobe
questioned.:
(1)totesthisveracity.
(2)todiscoverwhoheisandwhatishispositioninlife,or
(3)toshakehiscredit,byinjuringhischaracter,although
theanswertosuchquestionsmighttenddirectlyor
indirectlytoincriminatehimormightexposeortend
directlyorindirectlytoexposehimtoapenaltyor
forfeiture.
14.Theoft-quotedobservationofLordHershell,L.C.inBrowne
VsDunnclearlyelucidatestheprincipleunderlyingthose
provisions.Itreadsthus:
Icannothelpsaying,thatitseemstometobe
absolutelyessentialtotheproperconductofacause,where
itisintendedtosuggestthatawitnessisnotspeakingthe
truthonaparticularpoint,todirecthisattentiontothefact
bysomequestionsputincross-examinationshowingthat
thatimputationisintendedtobemade,andnottotakehis
evidenceandpassitbyasamatteraltogether
unchallenged,andthen,whenitisimpossibleforhimto:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(12)criapl466.16explain,asperhapshemighthavebeenabletodoifsuch
questionshadbeenputtohim,thecircumstanceswhich,it
issuggested,indicatethatstoryhetellsoughtnottobe
believed,toarguethatheisawitnessunworthyofcredit.
MyLords,Ihavealwaysunderstoodthatifyouintendto
impeachawitness,youarebound,whilstheisinthebox,
togiveanopportunityofmakinganyexplanationwhichis
opentohim;and,asitseemstome,thatisnotonlyarule
ofprofessionalpracticeintheconductofacase,butitis
essentialtofairplayandfairdealingwithwitnesses.
Similarly,inSarwanSinghVsStateofPunjab[(2003)1SCC240]:[2003
ALLMR(Cri)156(SC)],theHon’bleSupremeCourtreiteratedthis
positionbyobservinginparagraph9ofitsjudgmentasunder:
9…………Itisaruleofessentialjusticethatwheneverthe
opponenthasdeclinedtoavailhimselfoftheopportunitytoput
hiscaseincross-examinationitmustfollowthattheevidence
tenderedonthatissueoughttobeaccepted…..”
Hence,followingaforesaidpositionoflaw,therewouldbenodifficulty
inacceptingtheunchallengedversionoftheprosecutrixthatherdateof
birthwas5thJanuary,1997.Thoughitistrue,asurgedbythelearned
counselfortheappellant,thattheinitialburdentoprovetheageofthe
prosecutrixliesontheprosecution,itisalsotruethatiftherelevant:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(13)criapl466.16versionoftheprosecutrixasregardsherdateofbirthhasgone
unchallenged,itmeansthatthedefencehasacceptedsaidstatement
madeonoathbythewitness.Hence,thereisnoreasontodiscardthe
unchallengedversionof”S”thatherdateofbirthwas5thJanuary,1997.
13.FromthedepositionofPW-10,itisclearthatthelast
menstrualperiodwasstatedtobeon8thJanuary,2013.Thebabywas
actuallybornon23rdSeptember,2013throughanormaldelivery.Itis,
thus,obviousthattheprosecutrixwashardlyaged16yearswhenon
accountofsexualintercoursebytheappellant,shehadconceived.Once
herdateofbirthisacceptedtobe5thJanuary,1997,itisclearthaton
5thJanuary,2013shewasagedsixteenyearsofage.Itis,thus,clear
fromtheevidenceonrecordthatshewaslessthansixteenyearsofage
whentheappellanthadsexualintercoursewithher.Inthisbackdrop,
therefore,theendeavoronthepartofthelearnedcounselforthe
appellanttourgethattherelationshipbetweenthepartieswas
consensualinnaturefallstotheground.AsperprovisionsofSection
375sixthlySectionofthePenalCodewheretheageofthevictimislessthan
sixteenyears,aspectofconsentbecomesirrelevant.Referenceinthat
regardcanbemadetothedecisionofHon’bleSupremeCourtinSatish
KumarJayantilalDabgarVsStateofGujrat[(2015)7SCC359]:[2015
ALLSCR1293].Inthatviewofthematter,thedecisionsrelieduponby
thelearnedcounselfortheappellanttoindicateconsentonthepartof
theprosecutrixcannotbemadeapplicableinthepresentfacts.Forthe
samereason,thealternateargumentmadeonbehalfoftheappellantby
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(14)criapl466.16
referringtoSection42ofthesaidActthatalesserpunishmentasper
theprovisionsofSection376ofthePenalCodedeservestobeimposed,
alsocannotbeaccepted.”
b]InthecaseofS.VaradrajanVsStateofMadras1965
AIR(SC)942itwasheldthatthegirlherself
telephoningtheaccusedandaccompanyinghimtoofficeof
Sub-Registrarformarriage.Adistinctionbetweentaking
aminororallowingaminortoaccompany.Itwasobserved
asunder:
“ThereisnotawordinthedepositionofSavitrifromwhichan
inferencecouldbedrawnthatsheleftthehouseofK.Natrajanatthe
instanceorevenasuggestionoftheappellant.Infactshecandidly
admitsthatonthemorningofOctoberIst,sheherselftelephonedtothe
appellanttomeetherinhiscaratacertainplace,wentuptothatplace
andfindinghimwaitinginthecargotintothatcarofherownaccord.
Nodoubt,shesaysthatshedidnottelltheappellantwheretogoand
thatitwastheappellanthimselfwhodrovethecartoGuindyandthen
toMylaporeandotherplaces.Further,Savitrihasstatedthatshehad
decidedtomarrytheappellant.Thereisnosuggestionthatthe
appellanttookhertotheSub-Registrar’sofficeandgottheagreementof
marriageregisteredthere(thinkingthatthiswassufficientinlawto
makethemmanandwife)byforceorblandishmentsoranythinglike
that.Ontheotherhandtheevidenceofthegirlleavesnodoubtthatthe
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(15)criapl466.16
insistenceofmarriagecamefromherside.Theappellant,bycomplying
withherwishescanbynostretchofimaginationbesaidtohavetaken
heroutofthekeepingofherlawfulguardian.Aftertheregistrationof
theagreementboththeappellantandSavitrilivedasmanandwifeand
visiteddifferentplaces.ThereisnosuggestioninSavitri’sevidence,
who,itmaybementionedhadattainedtheageofdiscretionandwas
onthevergeofattainingmajoritythatshewasmadebytheappellantto
accompanyhimbyadministeringanythreattoherorbyany
blandishments.Thefactofheraccompanyingtheappellantallalongis
quiteconsistentwithSavitri’sowndesiretobethewifeoftheappellant
inwhichthedesireofaccompanyinghimwhereverhewentwasof
courseimplicit.Inthesecircumstanceswefindnothingfromwhichan
inferencecouldbedrawnthattheappellanthadbeenguiltyoftaking
awaySavitrioutofthekeepingofherfather.Shewillinglyaccompanied
himandthelawdidnotcastuponhimthedutyoftakingherbackto
herfather’shouseorevenoftellinghernottoaccompanyhim.
Thereisadistinctionabetween”taking”andallowingaminorto
accompanyaperson.Thetwoexpressionsarenotsynonymousthough
wewouldliketoguardourselvesfromlayingdownthatinno
conceivablecircumstancescanthetwoberegardedasmeaningthe
samethingforthepurposesofSection361oftheIndianPenalCode.
Wewouldlimitourselvestoacaselikethepresentwheretheminor
allegedtohavebeentakenbytheaccusedpersonleftherfather’s
protectionknowingandhavingcapacitytoknowthefullimportofwhat
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(16)criapl466.16
shewasdoingvoluntarilyjoinstheaccusedperson.Insuchacasewedo
notthinkthattheaccusedcanbesaidtohavetakenherawayfromthe
keepingofherlawfulguardian.Somethingmorehastobeshownina
caseofthiskindandthatissomekindofinducementheldoutbythe
accusedpersonoranactiveparticipationbyhimintheformationofthe
intentionoftheminortoleavethehouseoftheguardian.”
c]InthecaseofMukarrabandothersVsStateof
UttarPradesh(2017)2SupremeCourtCases210itwas
heldthatcourtshavealwaysheldthatevidenceafforded
byradiologicalexaminationisnodoubtausefulguiding
factorfordeterminingageofaperson,butevidenceis
notofaconclusiveandincontrovertiblenatureanditis
subjecttoamarginoferror.Medicalevidenceastothe
ageofapersonthoughaveryusefulguidingfactoris
notconclusiveandhastobeconsideredalongwithother
circumstances.Ossificationtestcannotberegardedas
conclusivewhenitcomestoascertainingtheageofa
person.Moreso,appellant-accusedhereinhavecertainly
crossedtheageofthirtyyears,whichisanimportant
factortobetakenintoaccount,asagecannotbe
determinedwithprecision.Infact,inthemedicalreport
ofappellants,itisstatedthattherewasnoindication
fordentalx-rayssincebothaccusedwerebeyond25years
ofage.Therefore,theagedeterminationbasedon
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:37:::
(17)criapl466.16
ossificationtestthoughmaybeusefulisnotconclusive
x-rayossificationtestcanbynomeansbesoinfallible
andaccurateatestastoindicatethecorrectnumberof
yearsanddaysofapersonslife.
9.Mr.Kutti,learnedAPP,ontheotherhand,
submittedthatonthebasisofevidenceofPWs-1,2,3,6
and9theprosecutionhasprovedthattheageofthe
victimgirl/prosecutrixwasbelow18yearsandtherefore,
herconsentisimmaterial.Themedicalevidenceadduced
bytheprosecutionalsosupportsthecaseofthe
prosecutionregardingcommittingrapeonthevictimgirl
bytheappellant.Asthevictimgirlwasbelow18years
ageonthedateofincidentshewasachildwithinthe
meaningofSection2(d)ofthePOCSOAct.Theactofthe
appellantofhavingsexualintercoursewithherhasbeen
provedbeyonddoubtonthebasisofevidenceofvictim
girlandthemedicalevidence.Notonlythisbutwhile
answeringthequestionNos.37,38and48inthe
statementunderSection313oftheCodeofCriminal
Proceduretheappellantincleartermsadmittedthathe
hadsexualintercoursewiththevictimgirl.Thus,itis
sufficientlyprovedthattheappellanthadcommitted
aggravatedpenetrativesexualassaultonthevictimgirl
andhissaidactispunishableunderSection6ofthe
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(18)criapl466.16
POCSOAct.LearnedAPPthussubmittedthatthe
prosecutionhasprovedalltheoffencesagainstthe
appellantwithwhichhewaschargedandthetrialCourt
hasrightlyconvictedandsentencedtheappellantforthe
saidoffencesbytheimpugnedjudgmentandtherefore,as
theappealsansmerit,thesamemaybedismissed.
10.LearnedAPPsubmittedthatincaseitisfound
thattheingredientsofoffenceunderSection366-Aof
theIPCarenotprovedbytheprosecutionagainstthe
appellanttheninthatcaseonthebasisofevidenceof
prosecutionithasestablishedoffenceunderSection366
oftheIPCandtheappellantcanbeconvictedofthe
offenceunderSection366oftheIPCevenintheabsence
ofchargeundersaidsection.Tosupporthissaid
submissionlearnedAPPhasrelieduponthedecisionin
thecaseofBhagwanLaxmanRaksheVstheStateof
Maharashtra2016ALLMR(Cri)4414whereininparagraph
Nos.16and17itwasobservedasunder:
“16.Thelearnedcounselfortheappellant-accusedreliedonthe
caseofMohd.NisarVsStateofMaharashtra[2006ALLMR(Cri)
3046](supra)andreferringtoobservationsofthisCourtinpara
12ofthatjudgment,statedthat,Section366-AoftheIPCcould
beappliedonlyiftheminorgirlwastakensoastoforceor:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(19)criapl466.16seducedhertoillicitintercoursewith”anotherperson”andcould
notbeappliediftheaccusedhadtakenhertohimselfcommitthe
forcibleintercourse.
17.Inthepresentmatter,theaccusedwaschargedwith
Section366-AoftheIPC.Evenifthesubmissionistobeaccepted
thatSection366-Awouldgetattractedifaminorgirlis
kidnappedwithintentionthatsheshouldbeforcedorseducedto
illicitintercoursewith”anotherperson”stillthereappearsno
reasonwhySection366ofIPCshouldnotbeapplied.Thebasic
ingredientsareincludedinSection366ofIPCalso.Section366
ofIPC,apartfromabductionorinducingawomantocompelher
marriage,interalia,dealswithoffenceofkidnappingwith
intentionthatthewomanmaybeforcedtoillicitintercourse.
Evenforsuchoffence,thepunishmentprescribedisof10years.
InSection366-Aalso,thepunishmentprescribedisof10years.It
wouldbethus,appropriatetoconverttheconvictionawardedby
trialCourtunderSection366-AintoaconvictionunderSection
366ofIPCandotherwisemaintainthesentenceaswaspassedby
thetrialCourt.”
11.Mr.Dhage,learnedcounselforrespondentNo.2/
informantadoptedtheargumentadvancedbythelearned
APPandclaimedtodismisstheappeal.
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(20)criapl466.16
12.Ihavecarefullyconsideredthesubmissionsmade
bythelearnedcounselfortheappellant,thelearnedAPP
andlearnedcounselforrespondentNo.2.
13.Consideringtheingredientsofoffencesunder
Section366-A,Section376oftheIPCandunderSection6ofthe
POCSOActandconvictionoftheappellantforthesaid
offencestheageofthevictimgirl/prosecutrixonthe
dateofincidenti.e.on04.12.2013wouldbematerial.
Therefore,Iwouldliketoconsiderthesaidaspectat
thefirstplace.Toprovetheageofthevictimgirlthe
prosecutionhasmainlyreliedupontheevidenceofPWs-
1,2,3,6and9,agecertificate(Exh.37),Radiological
report(Exh.65)andcopyofregisterofextract
(Exh.66/2)producedwithcertificate(Exh.66/1).
14.Comingtotheevidenceofabovewitnessesthe
evidenceofinformant(PW-1)whoisfatherofthevictim
girlisthattheageofthevictimgirlatthetimeof
incidentwas16yearsandshewasstudyingin11thstd.
inK.K.M.College,Manwat.Hissaidevidencehasgone
unchallengedinthecourseofhiscross-examination.
Therefore,thereisnoreasontodisbelievehisevidence.
Inthecomplaint(Exh.13)lodgedbyhimon04.12.2013in
thepolicestationalsoitisstatedthatageofthe
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(21)criapl466.16
victimgirlwas16years.Theevidenceofvictimgirl
(PW-2)whichwasrecordedon30.07.2015isthatherage
was18years.Theincidenttookplaceon04.12.2013and
therefore,heragewasmorethan16yearsandlessthan
18yearsonthedateofincident.Inthecross-
examinationshedeniedthatatthetimeofincidenther
agewas17years6monthsto18years.Thus,nothingwas
foundinfavouroftheappellantinhercross-examination
torejectherevidenceaboutherage.
15.ThenextistheevidenceofJankiramMorey(PW-
3)HeadmasterofSmt.ShakuntalabaiKanchanraoKatruwar,
PrimarySchool,Manwat.Hisevidenceisthatthevictim
girlwasthestudentoftheirschool.Asperthe
admissionandgeneralregister,dateofbirthofthe
victimgirlis08.07.1987.Shetookadmissionintheir
schoolin7thstd.ShecamefromZillaParishadPrimary
School,Nagarjawala.Hehadbroughtoriginalschool
leavingcertificateissuedbyZillaParishadPrimary
SchoolNagarjawalaofthevictimgirl.Hehasalsostated
aboutExh.25schoolleavingcertificateissuedbyhis
schoolaftervictimgirlhadpassedSCCexaminationin
theMarch,2013.Inthecross-examinationonbehalfof
theaccusedhestatedthatinitiallyadmissionofthe
victimgirlwasinZillaParishadSchool,Nagarjawalaand
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(22)criapl466.16
furtherstatedthathedoesnotknowwhatevidencewas
givenbythevictimgirlaboutherdateofbirthatthe
timeofherschooladmissionintheZillaParishad
PrimarySchool,Nagarjawala.Hestatedthatwhatever
evidencegiveninthesaidschool,itmaybeavailablein
thesaidschool.Hehasdeniedthatdateofbirth
mentionedintheleavingcertificateissuedbyZilla
Parishad,Manwatiswrong.FromtheevidenceofPW-3,it
canbesaidthathisevidenceisbasedontheschool
leavingcertificateofthevictimgirlissuedbyZilla
ParishadSchool,Nagarjawalaandthevictimgirlwas
admittedinschoolin7thstdandherinitialadmission
in1ststdwasinZillaParishadSchool,Nagarjawala.
Therefore,recordinthesaidZillaParishadSchool
regardingdateofbirthofthevictimgirlwasrequired
tobeproducedandprovedbytheprosecution.But
admittedly,saidrecordisnotproducedandprovedbythe
prosecution.Therefore,theschoolrecordintheformof
schoolleavingcertificate(Exh.25)ofthevictimgirl
whensheleftschoolofPW-3aftershepassed10thstd
examinationwhichshowsherbirthdateas08.07.1997is
notconclusiveproofofbirthdateofthevictimgirl.
16.TheevidenceofPW-6asregardstheageofthe
victimgirlisthaton13.12.2013thevictimgirlcamein
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(23)criapl466.16
thesaidhospitalwithpoliceperson.Shecarried
radiologicaltestofthevictimgirlandasperthesaid
testheragewaswithin15to16.5yearsandradiological
testwasconductedandOPDpaperswereprepared.SaidOPD
papersareatExh.39.Inthecross-examinationshestated
thatshesoughtopinionfromRadiologistabouttheage.
TwoX-raysweregivenfordeterminationofageofthe
victimgirlandthatshehasnotbroughtthosex-rays,
butshecanproducethesame.Shehasdeniedthatby
radiologicaltest,noaccurateagecanbedetermined.
Theycangivethespanoftheage.Errorofageis
alreadygiveni.e.between15to16.5years.In
radiologicaltest,fordeterminationofagetheremaybe
errorof1to2years.Therewasnofusionoflowerends
ofradiusandulna,thereforeageisdeterminedbelow17
years.Ifthatfusionwouldhavefoundout,theagewould
havebeen17orabove.Radiologisthasgivenopinion
aboutx-rayexamination.Shehasnotbroughtthesame.
Shehastakenentriesofx-rayexaminationfromthe
reportofradiologist(Exh.37).Itisnottruetosay
thatthepersonwhohastakenx-rayshouldgivean
opinionaboutx-rayexamination.Shehasdeniedthat
fusionisdependonnutritionandthatduetonutrition
only,therewillnotbelengthofbones.Shedeposedthat
theyhaddeterminedtheageonthebasisofossification
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(24)criapl466.16
centresandnotonthelengthofbone.Shehasdenied
thattheageofthevictimgirlwas18andaboveand
furtherdeniedthatshehasshowntheageofthevictim
girlwronglyas15to16.5years.Thus,nothingisfound
infavouroftheaccusedinthecross-examinationof
PW-6.Therefore,thereisnoreasontodisbelievethe
evidenceofPW-6.TheevidenceofPW-6isfurther
corroboratedby(Exh.37)reportoftheradiologistasit
showsthaton13.12.2013probableradiologicalageofthe
victimgirlwasbetween15to16.5years.Even
consideringtheerrorofoneortwoyearsageofthe
victimgirlatthematerialtimeofincidentwas15to
16.5yearsandassuchheragewasbelow18yearsatthe
timeofincident.
17.Nextevidenceontheageofthevictimgirlis
ofDr.Mehatre(PW-9)whowasworkingasClass-I
RadiologistCivilHopsital,Parbhanion13.12.2013.
AccordingtohimonthesaiddateX-rayofthevictim
girlwastakenbytechnicianandsamewasforwardedto
himfordeterminationofage.Heperusedthex-rayand
gavehisradiologicalopinionthattheageofthevictim
girlisinbetween15to16.5yearsandaccordinglyhe
issuedcertificateandherecordedfindingsasperExh.65
andextractoforiginalregisterisatExh.66.Hestated
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(25)criapl466.16
thatthemarginisitselfincludedbetweenage15to16.5
years.Inthecross-examinationhedeniedthatwhenhe
recordedfindingstheageofthevictimgirlwasmore
than18yearsandthatherecordedwrongfindings.Thus
nothingisfoundinfavouroftheappellantinthecross-
examinationofDr.Mehatreandthusthereisnoreasonto
disbelievehisevidence.Hisevidenceiscorroboratedby
hisfindingsExh.65andextractofregister/certificate
Exh.66/1andExh.66/2entriesinthesaidregister.
Exh.65andExh.66/1-66/2corroboratetheevidenceof
Dr.Mehatre(PW-9)regardingtheageofthevictimgirlon
13.12.2013.Thus,onthebasisofevidenceofDr.Mehatre
itcanbesaidthatincludingthemargintheageofthe
victimgirlatthetimeofincidentwasbetween15to
16.5yearsandassuchitcanbesaidonthebasisofhis
evidencethatageofthevictimgirlatthetimeof
incidentwaslessthan18years.
18.Forallthereasonsdiscussedaboveonthebasis
ofevidenceofPWs-1,2,6,9andagecertificate(Exh.37),
Radiologicalreport(Exh.65)andcopyofregisterof
extract(Exh.66/2)producedwithcertificate(Exh.66/1),
Iholdthattheprosecutionhasprovedthattheageof
thevictimgirlatthetimeofincidentwasbetween15
yearsto16.5yearsandassuchshewasbelow18yearsof
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(26)criapl466.16
theagei.e.childwithinthemeaningofSection2-dof
thePOCSOAct.
19.NowcomingtotheevidenceofPWs-1,2,4and6
andMedicalExaminationReportandGeneralPhysical
ExaminationReportofthevictimgirl,theevidenceof
victimgirl(PW-2)isthattheappellantisfromher
brotherhood.Beforesixmonthsofincidenttheygot
acquaintedwitheachother.Theappellantwascallingher
atManwat.Theirfriendshipturnedintolove.Appellant
takenoathtomarrywithher.On03.12.2013hetelephoned
onhermobileandtoldherthattheyhavetogoandthey
havetomarry.Herfathercametohouseat08.00pm.She
tookmobileofherfather.Allmembersoffamilywentto
sleep.Inthemidnightat12.00hoursthe
appellant/accusedtelephonedher.Afterreceivingphone,
shecameoutofthehouse.Theappellanttoldhertocome
withhim.HehadstoppedoneIndicacarnearMaruti
templeinthevillage.Ashetoldhertocome,shewent
tohim.Heaskedhertositinthecar.Healsosatin
thecar.TheywenttovillageKardeofTalukaShirurin
PuneDistrict.Hewashavinghisfriendthere.They
stayedtwodaysatthehouseofhisfriend.Hetookone
roomonrentinthefieldofvillageKarde.Whiletaking
roomonrent,hetoldtoSunilJagdale(PW-4)thatthey
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(27)criapl466.16
arehusbandandwife.Theyresidedtheretill11.12.2013.
Theappellantwastalkingwithhersweetlyandmisguiding
thattheywillgetmarry.Heperformedsexualintercourse
withher.Heremovedherclothes.Heremovedhertop,
pantandnicker.Heremovedhisclothes.Heremovedhis
pantandunderwear.Helaidheronground.Thereafter,he
insertedhisurinalpartintoherurinalpart.Therefore,
shewasgettingpain.Hecommittedsexualintercourseon
05.12.2013.Againaftertwodays,hecommittedsexual
intercourse.Againon09.12.2013hecommittedsexual
intercoursewithher.On11.12.2013theywereathouse.
PolicebroughtbothofthemtoShirur.Shewastobe
medicallyexaminedandshehadmenstruation.Againshe
wascalledtohospitalon17.12.2013andDoctorexamined
her.Inthecross-examinationshereaffirmedthatonthe
dateofincidentwhileshewassleepinginthehousewith
herparentsandsister,theappellantcalledherand
thereforeatherownshecameoutofthehouseandsatin
theIndicacarstandingnearMarutitempleandthatthe
appellantseatedherintheIndicacarandthatshehad
notrefusedtositinthecar.Shealsostatedthatshe
wentwiththeaccusedfromherhousetillMarutitemple
onherownaccordandshehadnotinformedthesameto
herparents.Shestatedinthecross-examinationthatthe
appellant/accusedhasnotperformedmarriagewithher.
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(28)criapl466.16
Shedeniedthattheappellanthasnotcommittedsexual
intercoursewithherasperherwillduring05.12.2013to
10.12.2013.Shehasdeniedthattheappellanthasnot
committedsexualassaultonher.Shehasnotdeniedthat
hermotherandfatherhavebroughtpressureonherand
therefore,shehasdeposedfalse.Thusnothingisfound
infavouroftheappellantinthecross-examinationof
thevictimgirl.Thus,theevidenceofthevictimgirlis
notshatteredinhercross-examination.
20.Theevidenceofinformant(PW-1)fatherofthe
victimgirlistotheeffectthattheincidenttookplace
on03.12.2013andinthenightonthatdaythevictim
girlwassleepinginthehouseandinthenightatabout
03.00amwhenhiswifeSumangotupshenoticedthatthe
victimgirlwasnotinthehouseandthereuponhe
informedthesametohisneighbourShamraoDamodhar
Dendge,hisbrotherShivajianduncleRambhauandfinally
hefiledcomplaint(Exh.13)inManwatPoliceStation.His
evidencealsoshowsthatafterthevictimgirlwasfound
heenquiredwithherandsheinformedhimthatthe
appellanthadkidnappedherinducingherbygiving
promiseofmarriage.Soalso,accordingtohimthevictim
girlinformedhimthattheappellanthastakenherto
KardeShivar,Tq.Shirur,Dist.Puneandtherethe
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(29)criapl466.16
appellantcommittedsexualintercoursewithher.Inthe
cross-examinationhehasdeniedthatheisdeposing
false.Thus,fromhisevidence,itcanbesaidthatthe
victimgirlinformedhimaboutkidnappingherbythe
appellantandaboutcommittingsexualintercoursewith
her.
21.TheevidenceofSunilJagdale(PW-4)inwhose
roomthevictimgirlandtheappellantstayednearlyfor
7to8dayshasdeposedthatoneroomofhisbrotherwas
giventotheappellantandthevictimgirlandheasked
theappellanthisnameandhetoldhisnameasBhagwat
andthatthevictimgirlwashiswife.Accordingtohim
theywereresidingashusbandandwifefor7to8days
andallofsuddenpolicecameandcarriedthem.Inthe
cross-examinationhehasstatedthatthevictimgirlhad
toldthattheirmarriagewassolemnizedandthatsheis
wifeoftheappellant.Theappellantwasgoingtojobin
SVScompany.Hewasgoingtocompanyat08.00amandhe
wasreturningat05.00to05.30pm.Aftertheappellant
wenttoattendhisjob,thevictimgirlalonewasstaying
intheroomandshehasnotmadeanycomplaintduringher
stay.Shehasnotmadeanygrievancetohismotherand
brotherDattatrayaabouttheappellant.Fromtheevidence
ofthiswitness,itisclearthattheappellantandthe
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(30)criapl466.16
victimgirl(PW-2)residedashusbandandwifeinthe
roomofbrotherofthiswitnessonrentatKarde,Tq.
Shirurfor7to8days.
22.TheevidenceofDr.DeepaliShinde(PW-6)whowas
MedicalOfficerinCivilHospital,Parbhaniisthaton
13.12.2013thevictimgirlwasbroughtintheCivil
Hospitalforexaminationandthevictimgirlgavehistory
thatshewaskidnappedbytheappellantandshewaskept
for10daysandduringsaidperiodtheappellanthad
sexualintercoursefor2to3times.Sheconducted
medicalexaminationandaskedthevictimgirltocome
aftercompletionofhermenses.Doctorfurtherstated
thaton17.12.2013thevictimgirlcameinthehospital.
Sheexaminedherandonclinicalexaminationshefound
thathymenwasrupturedandadmittwofingerswith
tenderness.Therewerenoanyscratchesorabrasionsor
anybleedingfromgenitals.Noanyinjuryonotherbody
part.Shecollectedsampleofblood,nails,pubichairs,
vaginalswabandnailscrapingsandaccordinglyissued
report(Exh.35).Inthecrossexaminationonbehalfof
theappellantshestatedthatifaforciblesexual
intercourseismadeagainstthewillofthevictimgirl,
certainlytherewillbeinjuryonexternalbodyandon
genital.RestoftheevidenceoftheDoctorreferredto
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(31)criapl466.16
aboveregardingfindingthathymenwasrupturedandadmit
twofingerswithtenderness,therewerenoanyscratches
orabrasionsoranybleedingfromgenitals,noanyinjury
onotherbodypartyandthatthevictimgirlgavehistory
thatshewaskidnappedandtheappellanthadsexual
intercoursewithherfor2to3timesduring10dayshas
goneunchallenged.
23.Exh.35/1istheMedicalexaminationreportfor
sexualassaultissuedbyDr.DeepaliShinde(PW-6)andit
alsoshowsthehistorygivenbythevictimgirltoPW-6
asdeposedbyPW-6.Moreover,Exh.35/2GeneralPhysical
ExaminationreportofthevictimgirlissuedbyPW-6also
showsthatthehymenwastornandvaginaadmittwo
fingerswithtendernessasdeposedbyPW-6.Thus,these
twodocumentscorroboratetheevidenceofPW-6aboutthe
historygivenbythevictimgirltoPWs-6aboutthe
incidentofsexualassaultonherbytheappellanton2
to3timesduring10daysperiod.
24.Thus,onthebasisofevidenceofvictimgirl
(PW-2),MedicalOfficerDeepaliShinde(PW-6),Medical
ExaminationReportforsexualassault(Exh.35)and
GeneralPhysicalExamination(Exh.35/2)ofthevictim
girl,itcanbesaidthattheappellanthadsexual
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(32)criapl466.16
intercoursewiththevictimgirlwhowasbetween15to
16.5yearsi.e.below18yearsanditamountstorape
withinthemeaningofclauseSixthlyofSection375(a)
oftheSectionIPC,whichsaysthatamanissaidtocommit
“rape”ifhe(a)Penetrateshispenis,toanyextent,
intothevagina,mouth,urethraoranusofawomanor
makeshertodosowithhimoranyotherperson;Withor
withoutherconsent,whensheisundereighteenyearsof
agewhichispunishableunderSection376(1)oftheIPC.
ThetrialCourthasrightlyheldso.
25.Moreover,onthebasisofaforementioned
evidenceofthevictimgirlandDr.Shinde(PW-6)andtwo
reportsofexaminationissuedbyher,itcanbesaidthat
theappellantcommittedaggravatedpenetrativesexual
assaultwithinthemeaningofSection5ofthePOCSOAct
whichispunishableunderSection6ofthePOCSOActas
thevictimwaschildbelow18yearsofagewithinthe
meaningofSection2-dofthePOCSOAct.ThetrialCourt
hasrightlyheldso.
26.Now,itistobeseenwhethertheabovereferred
evidenceofthevictimgirl(PW-2),herfather(PW-1)and
SunilJagdale(PW-4)issufficienttostatethatthe
prosecutionhasprovedtheoffenceunderSection366-Aof
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(33)criapl466.16
theSectionIPCagainsttheappellant.Hereitisusefultorefer
thedecisioninthecaseofIqbalVsStateofKerala
(2008)Cri.L.J.436whereintheHon’ableApexcourtin
para9to11observedasunder:
“9.TheresidualquestionisofapplicabilityofSection366-A
IPC.InordertoattractSection366-AIPC,essentialingredients
are(1)thattheaccusedinducedagirl;(2)thattheperson
inducedwasagirlundertheageofeighteenyears;(3)thatthe
accusedhasinducedherwithintentthatshemaybeorknowing
thatitislikelythatshewillbeforcedorseducedtoillicit
intercourse;(4)suchintercoursemustbewithapersonother
thantheaccused;(5)thattheinducementcausedthegirltogo
fromanyplaceortodoanyact.
10.Intheinstantcase,theadmittedcaseoftheprosecutionis
thatgirlhadleftinthecompanyoftheaccusedofherownwill
andthatshewasnotforcedtosexualintercoursewithanyperson
otherthantheaccused.Theadmittedcaseisthatshehadsexual
intercoursewiththeaccusedforwhich,consideringherage,
convictionu/s376SectionIPChasbeenmaintained.Sincetheessential
ingredientthattheintercoursemustbewithapersonotherthan
theaccusedhasnotbeenestablished,Section366-Ahasno
application.
11.Intheresult,theconvictionforoffencepunishableu/s366-
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(34)criapl466.16
ASectionIPCissetasidewhiletheconvictionandsentenceimposedin
respectofoffencepunishableu/s376SectionIPCismaintained.
Theappealisallowedtotheaforesaidextent.”
27.Onconsideringtheevidenceofthevictimgirl
(PW-2)herfather(PW-1)andSunilJagdale(PW-4)itis
clearthatoutoffiveingredientsoftheoffenceunder
Section366-AoftheIPCreferredtoabovethe
prosecutionhasnotprovedingredientNo.4thatsuch
intercoursemustbewithapersonotherthantheaccused,
becauseinthepresentcaseonthebasisofevidenceof
thevictimgirl,herfatherandevidenceofDr.Shinde
(PW-6),itcanbesaidthattheappellanthadsexual
intercoursewiththevictimgirlanditisnotatallthe
caseoftheprosecutionthatthevictimgirlwasinduced
toforceorseducehertoillicitintercoursewitha
personotherthantheappellant/accused.Therefore,even
ifthevictimgirlbelow18yearsofagewaskidnapped
outofthelawfulcustodyofherparentswhichamountsto
kidnapwithinthemeaningofSection363oftheIPC,it
cannotbesaidthatshewasinducedwithintentthatshe
maybeforcedorseducedtoillicitintercoursewith
anotherpersonwithinthemeaningofSection366-Aofthe
IPC.Therefore,applyingtheratiolaiddowninthecase
ofIqbal(supra)Iholdthattheprosecutionhasfailed
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(35)criapl466.16
toprovetheoffenceunderSection363oftheIPCofthe
appellant.Thus,findingrecordedbythetrialCourtthat
theprosecutionhasprovedtheoffenceunderSection366-
AoftheIPCagainsttheappellantisincorrectandnot
sustainable.
28.Relyinguponthedecisioninthecaseof
BhagwanLaxmanRakshe(supra)learnedAPPsubmittedthat
incase,itisheldthattheprosecutionhasfailedto
proveoffenceunderSection366-AoftheIPCagainst
accusedthenaccusedbeconvictedfortheoffenceunder
Section366oftheIPCbyalteringtheconvictionfrom
Section366-AintoaconvictionunderSection366ofthe
IPCthoughnochargeisframedunderSection366ofthe
IPC.InthesaidcaseinparagraphNo.17asreferred
earlierindetailitwasobservedthatSection366ofthe
IPC,apartfromabductionorseducingawomantocompel
hermarriage,interalia,dealswithoffenceofkidnapping
withintentionthatthewomanmaybeforcedtoillicit
intercourse.Thepunishmentisprescribedof10yearsfor
boththeoffencesunderSection366-AandSection366of
theIPCandhenceitwouldbeappropriatetoconvert
convictionawardedunderSection366-Aintoconviction
underSection366oftheIPCandassuchsentenceas
passedbythetrialCourtwasmaintained.
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(36)criapl466.16
29.Here,itwouldbeappropriatetoreferthree
judgesdecisionoftheHon’bleApexCourtinthecaseof
ShamnsahebM.MulttaniVsStateofKarnataka(2001)2
SupremeCourtCases577whereininparagraphNos.16,17
and18ofthesaidjudgmenttheaspectwhatismeantbya
minoroffenceforthepurposeofSection222oftheCode
ofCriminalProcedureisconsidered.SaidparagraphNos.
16,17and18readasunder:-
“16.Whatismeantby”aminoroffence”forthepurposeof
Section222oftheCode?Althoughthesaidexpressionisnot
definedinSectiontheCodeitcanbediscernedfromthecontextthatthe
testofminoroffenceisnotmerelythattheprescribed
punishmentislessthanthemajoroffence.Thetwoillustrations
providedinthesectionwouldbringtheabovepointhomewell.
Onlyifthetwooffencesarecognateoffences,whereinthemain
ingredientsarecommon,theonepunishableamongthemwitha
lessersentencecanberegardedasminoroffencevis-a-visthe
otheroffence.
17.ThecompositionoftheoffenceunderSection304-BIPCis
vastlydifferentfromtheformationoftheoffenceofmurder
underSection302IPCandhencetheformercannotberegarded
asminoroffencevis-a-visthelatter.However,thepositionwould:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(37)criapl466.16bedifferentwhenthechargealsocontainstheoffenceunder
Section498-AIPC(husbandorrelativeofhusbandofawomen
subjectinghertocruelty).Astheword”cruelty”isexplainedas
including,interalia.
“harassmentofthewomanwheresuchharassmentis
withaviewtocoercingheroranypersonrelatedtoherto
meetanyunlawfuldemandforanypropertyorvaluable
securityorisonaccountoffailurebyheroranyperson
relatedtohertomeetsuchdemand.”
18.Sowhenapersonischargedwithanoffenceunder
Sections302andSection498-AIPContheallegationthathecausedthe
deathofabrideaftersubjectinghertoharassmentwithademand
fordowry,withinaperiodof7yearsofmarriage,asituationmay
arise,asinthiscase,thattheoffenceofmurderisnotestablished
asagainsttheaccused.Nonetheless,allotheringredients
necessaryfortheoffenceunderSection304-BIPCwouldstand
established.Cantheaccusedbeconvictedinsuchacaseforthe
offenceunderSection304-BIPCwithoutthesaidoffenceforming
partofthecharge?”
30.Moreover,itisnecessarytoreferSection222
oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureanditreadsasunder:
Section222.Whenoffenceprovedincludedinoffencecharged-
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(38)criapl466.16
(1)Whenapersonischargedwithanoffenceconsistingof
severalparticulars,acombinationofsomeonlyofwhich
constitutesacompleteminoroffence,andsuchcombinationis
proved,buttheremainingparticularsarenotproved,hemaybe
convictedoftheminoroffence,thoughhewasnotchargedwith
it.
(2)Whenapersonischargedwithanoffenceandfactsare
provedwhichreduceittoaminoroffence,hemaybeconvicted
oftheminoroffence,althoughheisnotchargedwithit.
(3)Whenapersonischargedwithanoffence,hemaybe
convictedofanattempttocommitsuchoffencealthoughthe
attemptisnotseparatelycharged.
(4)Nothinginthissectionshallbedeemedtoauthorisea
convictionofanyminoroffencewheretheconditionsrequisitefor
theinitiationofproceedingsinrespectofthatminoroffencehave
notbeensatisfied.
31.FromthedecisioninthecaseofShamnsahebM.
Multtani(supra)itisclearthatthetestofminor
offenceisnotmerelythattheprescribedpunishmentis
lessthanthemajoroffenceandthattwoillustrations
providedinSection222oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure
wouldbringthesaidpointhomewell.Soalso,itis
clearfromthesaiddecisionthatonlyifthetwo
offencesarecognateoffences,whereinmainingredients
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(39)criapl466.16
arecommon,theonepunishableamongthemwithalesser
sentencecanberegardedasminoroffencevis-a-visthe
otheroffence.Theingredientsofoffencepunishable
underSection366-Aarefiveasreferredearlierin
paragraphNo.24(supra)andtheingredientsofoffence
punishableunderSection366oftheIPCarethat;1.
Kidnappingorabductingofanywoman,2.Suchkidnapping
orabductingmustbe-(i)withintentthatshemaybe
compelledorknowingittobelikelythatshewillbe
compelledtomarryanypersonagainstherwill;or(ii)
inorderthatshemaybeforcedorseducedtoillicit
intercourse,orknowingittobelikelythatshewillbe
forcedorseducedtoillicitintercourse;or(iii)by
meansofcriminalintimidationorotherwisebyinducing
anywomantogofromanyplacewithintentthatshemay
be,orknowingthatshewillbe,forcedorseducedto
illicitintercourse.Themainingredientsofthesetwo
offencesarenotappearingcommon.Thematerial
ingredientsofoffenceunderSection366-AoftheIPCis
theinducementofagirlundertheageof18yearswith
intentthatshemaybeorknowingthatitislikelythat
shewouldbeforcedorseducedtoillicitintercourseand
suchintercoursemustbewithapersonotherthanthe
accused,whilematerialingredientsofoffenceunder
Section366iskidnappingorabductingofanywomanwith
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(40)criapl466.16
intentthatshemaybecompelledorknowingittobe
likelythatshewouldbecompelledtomarryanyperson
againstherwillorshemaybeforcedorseducedto
illicitintercourse,orknowingittobelikelythatshe
maybeforcedorseducedtoillicitintercourse.
Moreover,thepunishmentprovidedforboththeoffences
isthesameandthepunishmentofeitherofthese
offencesisnotlessthantheotheroffence.Considering
theseaspectsandapplyingtheaforementioned
observationsoftheHon’bleApexCourtregardingaminor
offenceinthecaseofShamnsahebM.Multtani(supra)I
holdthattheoffenceunderSection366oftheIPCcannot
beregardedasminoroffencetoSection366-AoftheIPC.
InviewofthisdecisionoftheHon’bleApexCourtasit
appearsthatthedecisioninthecaseofBhagwanLaxman
Rakshe(supra)isgivenonfactsofthesaidcaseisof
noassistancetotheprosecutiontoaccepttheargument
advancedbythelearnedAPPthattheoffenceunder
Section366oftheIPCisminortotheoffenceunder
Section366-AoftheIPCtoconvertconvictionunderthe
latteroffenceundertheformerintheabsenceofcharge.
32.Forthereasonsdiscussedabove,Iholdthatthe
prosecutionhasfailedtoprovetheoffenceunderSection
366-AoftheIPCagainsttheappellantandtherefore,the
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(41)criapl466.16
convictionandsentencerecordedagainsttheappellant
forthesaidoffenceaspertheimpugnedjudgmentisnot
sustainableandthesameisliabletobesetasideand
theappellantisentitledtobeacquittedofthesaid
offence.
33.Forthereasonsdiscussedaboveasthe
prosecutionhasprovedtheingredientsoftheoffence
punishableunderSection376oftheIPCandSection6of
thePOCSOActagainsttheappellanttheconvictionand
sentencerecordedagainsttheappellantforthesaid
offencesisproperasitisseenthatsentenceimposedon
theappellantforthesaidoffencesistheminimum
punishmentprovidedforthesaidoffences.Thus,thereis
noreasontointerferewiththesaidconvictionand
sentence.
34.Thus,theappealneedstobepartlyallowedin
thelightofconclusioninparagraphNo.32(supra).
Therefore,intheresult,thefollowingorderispassed:
ORDER
i]Appealispartlyallowed.
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(42)criapl466.16
ii]Theimpugnedjudgmentandorderdated
15.12.2015passedbytheAdditionalSessions
Judge,ParbhaniinSpecialCase(PCSO)No.14of
2014convictingandsentencingthe
appellant/accusedfortheoffencepunishable
underSection366-AoftheIPCisquashedand
setasideandtheappellant/accusedisacquitted
ofthesaidoffence.Fine,ifpaid,bythe
appellantinrespectofsaidoffenceshallbe
refundedtohim.
iii]Theimpugnedconvictionandsentence
againsttheappellantfortheoffences
punishableunderSection376oftheIPCand
Section6ofthePOCSOActisconfirmed.
iv]Restpartoftheimpugnedjudgment
regardingthesetoffgiventothe
appellant/accusedunderSection428oftheCode
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::
(43)criapl466.16ofCriminalProcedureismaintained.
v]RecordandproceedingintheSpecialCase
(PCSO)No.14/2014besenttothetrialCourt
forthwith.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]
VishalK/criapl466.16
:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::