Penal Code, 1860 – s.366 – Framing of charge under – When not justified – FIR registered by appellant against Respondent no.2, with whom she was in relationship earlier – Appellant stated that on the fateful night when she and Respondent no.2 were in a party, after the party finished, Respondent no.2 on the pretext of dropping her to the venue for dinner, drove her to his home and when on reaching there appellant refused to come out of the car, Respondent no.2 forcibly lifted her up, took her to his house and started beating her – Later, appellant gave further statement that she was also molested by Respondent no.2 – Charge sheet filed – Respondent no.2 discharged inter alia in respect of offence u/s.366 – On appeal, held: For charge u/s.366, mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough –It must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse– In the instant case, primary allegations made by appellant were that Respondent No. 2 forcibly took her to his house, first expressed his love for her and then started beating her which fact is evident on record – However, one week thereafter appellant made out a case of molestation stating that it was not stated earlier due to embarrassment – This does not inspire confidence as the FIR was lodged by appellant, five days after the incident, with due deliberation, and why within one week she thought of mentioning about molestation and did not feel embarrassed then – Even if it is proved that Respondent No. 2 forcibly took her to his house, the later version that his intention was to marry her or to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse was clearly an afterthought – Charge u/s.366 against respondent no.2 is not maintainable. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In order to constitute the offence of ‘abduction’ a person must be carried off illegally by force or deception, that is, to compel a person by force or deceitful means to induce to go from one place to another. The intention of the accused is the basis and the gravamen of an offence under this Section. The volition, the intention and the conduct of the accused determine the offence, and the intent of the accused is the vital question for determination in each case. Once the necessary intent of the accused is established, the offence is complete, whether or not the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose, and whether or not the woman consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse. Apart from this, to constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means. So far as charge under Section 366 IPC is concerned, mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC.[Paras 10-12][1000E-H; 1001-A-B]
1.2 One week after the FIR was got registered under various Sections of the IPC, a further statement was given by the appellant, after explaining the facts to her mother wherein the appellant made out a case of being molested. Her explanation that it was not stated earlier due to embarrassment does not inspire confidence as FIR was lodged five days after the incident and, therefore, she lodged the same with due deliberation. Again, why within one week thereafter she thought of mentioning about the molestation and did not feel embarrassed now? There is no explanation for that. The act of pulling out the appellant from the car of Respondent No. 2 was witnessed by the watchman. In this view of the matter, it is apparently clear that the allegation was confined to aspect of Respondent No. 2 forcibly taking her to his house. However, the allegations of removing her clothes and touching her inappropriately or molestation was added afterwards. It is evident on record that Respondent No. 2 and the appellant were in a relationship which was known to their families also. The primary allegations were that Respondent No. 2 took her forcibly to his house. But it was not with intent to seduce her to illicit intercourse. Actually, as per the prosecutrix, Respondent No. 2 first expressed his love for her and afterwards he started beating her with waist belt and using his hands which fact is evident on record. The statement of being molested at the hands of Respondent No. 2 was not given at once and was given later. The very same acts of Respondent No. 2 do not show his intent to abduct her in order to marry her against her will or to force her or seduce her to illicit intercourse. Even if it is proved that Respondent No. 2 forcibly took her to his house, but the later version that his intention was to marry her or to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse is clearly an afterthought. At the highest, the case can be put that both of them were in a relationship and due to sudden outbreak of emotions or due to sense of insecurity on the part of Respondent No. 2, the above act was done. [Paras 13, 14][1001-G-H; 1002-A, C, E-F]
Cref Finance Ltd. v. Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd. and Another (2005) 7 SCC 467: [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 873; Dharam Pal and Others v. State of Haryana and Another (2014) 3 SCC 306 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.