SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bhagwat S/O Munjabhau Hoge vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 June, 2019

(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)criapl466.16

HighCourt.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)criapl466.16

explain,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)criapl466.16

versionoftheprosecutrixasregardsherdateofbirthhasgone
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)criapl466.16

seducedhertoillicitintercoursewith”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)criapl466.16

bedifferentwhenthechargealsocontainstheoffenceunder
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)criapl466.16

ofCriminalProcedureismaintained.

v]RecordandproceedingintheSpecialCase

(PCSO)No.14/2014besenttothetrialCourt

forthwith.

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]

VishalK/criapl466.16

:::Uploadedon-07/06/201908/06/201906:27:38:::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation