Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In Mohammed Nisar Riyaz Khan and Etc. v. State of Maharashtra 2007 CriLJ 562 (Bom)/2006 (6) AIR BOM R 610, this court at its principal seat has observed in para 12 as under:

"12. Accused No. 1 has been found guilty of the offence under Section 366A of I.P. Code. Insofar as that finding is concerned, it is rightly submitted that the section would come into play, if it was to be established by the prosecution that the minor girl was taken away with intent or knowledge that she was likely to be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with "another person". In the present case, the charge against the appellant/accused No. 1 was that he himself committed forcible sexual intercourse on the minor girl Kum. Anjum. In such a case Section 366A will have no application. That section could have been invoked at best against the accused No. 2, that is not the offence for which accused No. 2 has been found guilty by the lower Court. The State has not challenged that part of the decision of the trial Court. Suffice it to observe that accused No. 1 cannot be proceeded for offence under Section 366A of I.P. Code."

CriAppeal-853-2019 In Sat Parkash v. State of Haryana and another ABC 2016 (I) 180 SC, following observations are made in para 5 and 6 by the Hon'ble Apex Court:

"5. The charge with reference to Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code needs a closer examination. Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code is extracted hereunder:
"366A 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."

6. A perusal of the aforesaid section reveals, that the inducing of the minor to constitute an offence under Section 366A, should have been with reference to an intent to force or seduce her "... to illicit intercourse with another person...". ........."

In Iqbal v. State of Kerala (2007) 2 SCC 724, the Hon'ble Apex Court has in para 9 and 10 observed thus:

CriAppeal-853-2019 " 9. The residual question is of applicability of Section 366A IPC. In order to attract Section 366A IPC, essential ingredients are (1) that the accused induced a girl; (2) that the person induced was a girl under the age of eighteen years; (3) that the accused has induced her with intent that she may be or knowing that it is likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse; (4) such intercourse must be with a person other than the accused; (5) that the inducement caused the girl to go from any place or to do any act.
10. In the instant case, the admitted case of the prosecution is that girl had left in the company of the accused of her own will and that she was not forced to sexual intercourse with any person other than the accused. The admitted case is that she had sexual intercourse with the accused for which, considering her age, conviction under Section 376 IPC has been maintained. Since the essential ingredient that the intercourse must be with a person other than the accused has not been established, Section 366A has no application."