Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently contend that, the Judgment under appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and the same is based on the evidence available on record. Learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused Nos.1 & 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 344 & 366A of IPC since the prosecution proved the charges leveled against them. Though material witness i.e. the victim-girl and her father the complainant turned hostile, P.W.3 the mother of the victim-girl deposed that, her daughter was traced about 20 days from the date of her missing at Kolhapur and accused No.1 kidnapped her. Therefore, according to the learned HCGP the trial Judge has convicted the accused by relying on the evidence deposed by P.W.3. Moreover, the Investigation Officer and other police officials who have conducted the investigation, supported the case of the prosecution. Merely because the investigation Officers being a police witness, their version cannot be discarded as per the settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court. As such, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused. He would further contend that, to determine the age of the victim, the trial Court relied on the medical certificate of the victim-girl which clearly depicts her age was 15-16 years as on the date of the incident. Hence, she being a minor at the time of the incident, the accused are liable to be punished for the offence under Section 366A of IPC. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

30. From a bare perusal of the Section 366A, it appears that there are three essential ingredients to constitute an offence of procurement of a minor girl under Section 366A. Those are 1) Victim girl may be induced by accused.

2)She must be minor age i.e. under the age of 18 years and 3) She must be induced by the accused person to go from a place or to do any act that 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. Amongst those, inducement is the basic requirement of law in a case of an offence under 366A of IPC. Though, the word

38. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and strangely convicted the accused for the offence under Section 366A and 344 of IPC along with accused No.6. No detailed reasoning is forthcoming in the judgment, how the offence under Section 366A of IPC is proved.

- 22 -

39. Viewed from any angle and considering the evidence available on record, more particularly, the victim herself turned hostile to the prosecution case and the father and mother of the victim girl also turned hostile to the prosecution case by categorically denying the very incident of kidnap and forcible sexual assault by the accused No.1, In my considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has erroneously came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against accused are proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to prove it's case beyond all reasonable doubts and by relying on the stray admissions made in the cross examination of hostile witnesses and by assumption and presumption, the accused cannot be convicted for the charges leveled against them. It is the settled position of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments while appreciating evidence in a criminal trial, the Court has to presume the innocence of the accused where there is a doubt or two views are possible. The benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. The trial court cannot act

41. Nevertheless, the State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 344 of IPC.

42. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, trial Judge has erred in convicting the

- 24 -

appellant for the offence under Section 366A of IPC and accordingly points for consideration are answered.

43. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant for the offences charged against him i.e. offence under Section 366A and 344 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the judgment of learned trial Judge is liable to be set aside and I proceed to pass the following: