Jharkhand High Court
Sabba @ Sabban Ali vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 August, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 648 of 2013
Sabba @ Sabban Ali, S/o Md. Akhtar, R/o Village Dendidih, PO, PS &
District Giridih.
... ... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
(Arising out of Judgment of Conviction dated 12.07.2013 and Order of
Sentence dated 23.07.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2012)
----
For the Appellant : Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
----
JUDGMENT
By Court:
Heard the parties.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction dated 12.07.2013 and Order of Sentence dated 23.07.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 2012, whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366A of Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 366A of IPC.
2. Ms. Shruti Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that from the evidence led by the prosecution, especially the victim girl though she is aged about 15 years, no ingredients of offence under Section 366A of IPC has been established. None of the witnesses has stated that there was any knowledge or intention that the girl will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. It is a submission that in absence of the ingredients, it is clear that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of this appellant.
3. Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P., appearing for the State, has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the victim is admittedly minor and she was forced to accompany the appellant and one Sonu. It is this appellant who blackmailed the victim by showing a picture of the girl with Sonu. The girl was taken to Delhi where they resided and thereafter the girl returned and P.W.1, who is the mother of the victim, stated that Sonu had 1 established physical relationship with the girl. Thus, as per the State, the offence of procuration of minor girl is made out against the appellant and the charge under Section 366A of IPC is proved.
4. After hearing the parties, we find that the F.I.R is at the instance of P.W.3 who stated that her daughter, who is aged about 15 years, went to school on 16.12.2011 but did not return. During search, his son Rohit stated that he saw the victim with Sonu Khan talking near a Petrol Pump. F.I.R was instituted against Sonu Khan. During course of investigation, it was found that Sonu Khan and this appellant were involved in taking away the victim. The charge-sheet was submitted against this appellant and he was put on trial and he pleaded not guilty.
5. Prosecution, in order to prove the case has examined eight witnesses. Relevant documents were also exhibited. Defence has also examined one witness as DW1. After closure of the evidence, the Trial Court, after recording the statement of the appellant and after hearing the arguments of the parties, has convicted the appellant for committing offence punishable under Section 366A of IPC.
6. We are not dealing with the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses as the evidence of the important witness i.e. victim girl will clearly suggest that no case under Section 366A is proved.
7. Though PW1, mother of the victim in her evidence, has stated that the girl was subjected to sexual intercourse with Sonu but the girl in her evidence has not whispered about any sexual intercourse nor did the girl, who is PW8, has stated that she was forced and induced to go with this appellant and Sonu for the purpose of illicit intercourse. She stated that this appellant was blackmailing her and forced her to accompany him and Sonu to Delhi where she remained in Delhi. Surprisingly, in her evidence, she states that Sonu and this appellant took her to Parasnath in a public vehicle and from there to Koderma where she was given something to eat. After eating, she became unconscious and she gained her consciousness after two-three days and found herself in Delhi. This statement of this girl is unbelievable as no one can take the girl in an unconscious or semi- conscious state in a public vehicle or in a train to New Delhi without being notice. This suggests that the girl eloped with this appellant and one Sonu. Admittedly, from the statement of the girl, we find that there is nothing to suggest that she was seduced or forced to have illicit intercourse with anyone nor she was taken for the aforesaid purpose also. DW 1, who is brother of Sonu Khan, stated that he went to Delhi and brought them back.
28. In this case, the conviction is under Section 366A of IPC. At the outset, it shall be desirable to extract Section 366A of IPC for better appreciation which reads as under:-
366-A. Procuration of minor girl.--Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
9. From perusal of the provision of law, we find that the basic ingredients of the aforesaid Section is that the girl should be minor i.e. aged of 18 years or less and she must be induced or threatened to go from any place to any other or to do an act with an intention and knowledge that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. Even if we come to a conclusion that she was forced to go with this appellant but there is nothing to suggest that there was any intention or knowledge or any force or any seduction to commit illicit intercourse. In absence of the aforesaid vital ingredients, this appellant could not be convicted under Section 366A of IPC.
10. Thus, in view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, discussed above, the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court in this appeal is, accordingly, set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
Since the appellant has already served the sentence, no order needs to be passed in this regard.
Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
(Ananda Sen, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 28th August, 2024 AKT/Satendra 3