Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Abduction Case Under Section 366-A IPC: Prosecution Fails to Prove Victim’s Minority and Coercion Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Emphasizes Need for Reliable Evidence in Age Determination

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court of India overturned the appellant’s conviction under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalizes the abduction of a minor girl for illicit purposes. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the victim’s minority or coercion, both critical elements for conviction under this provision. The appellant was acquitted, and the bail bonds were cancelled.

Facts

1. Allegations Against the Appellant: The appellant was accused of abducting the victim, a girl alleged to be 17 years old, with the intent to marry her. The prosecution claimed that the appellant forcibly took the victim in a jeep and moved her to different locations over a two-month period before she escaped.
2. Prosecution’s Case: The victim’s parents and witnesses testified that the appellant had developed a close relationship with the family prior to the incident. Despite being married, the appellant was alleged to have forcibly taken the victim with the intent to marry her. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered based on the victim’s account, and medical evidence was introduced to establish her minority.
3. Trial and Conviction: The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 366-A IPC, and this conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court and the Revisional Court. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged abduction, as required under Section 366-A IPC.
2. Whether the appellant’s actions constituted coercion or inducement for illicit purposes, a necessary element for conviction under this section.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing:

1. Doubtful Minority: The victim’s age was not conclusively established to be under 18 years. The medical evidence relied upon by the prosecution was inconclusive, and no birth certificate or official document was produced.
2. Inconsistent Testimony: The victim’s testimony was contradictory, especially regarding the alleged confinement and escape. She admitted that she did not attempt to raise an alarm or escape during the alleged abduction.
3. Absence of Illicit Purpose: There was no evidence of coercion, sexual advances, or any act indicating an illicit intention by the appellant.
4. Lack of Evidence on Key Elements: The prosecution failed to link the appellant conclusively with the vehicle allegedly used in the abduction or prove that he had the intent to seduce or exploit the victim.

Respondent’s Arguments

The prosecution, represented by the State, contended:

1. Minority Proven: Medical evidence established the victim’s age as between 16 to 17 years, confirming her minority.
2. Appellant’s Intent: The appellant’s intention to marry the victim implied a likelihood of sexual exploitation, as per the requirements of Section 366-A IPC.
3. Sufficient Evidence: The testimony of the victim and other witnesses established the appellant’s involvement in forcibly taking the victim away from her lawful guardians.

Analysis of the Law

1. Essentials of Section 366-A IPC:
   • The prosecution must prove:
     • The victim was a minor (below 18 years).
     • The accused induced or forced the victim to leave her lawful guardians.
     • The accused intended to force or seduce the victim into illicit intercourse or marriage.
2. Minority:
   • The medical evidence indicated the victim’s age to be between 16 to 17 years based on an ossification test. However, the Court noted that such tests allow a margin of error of two years, and the prosecution did not present any birth certificate or official record to conclusively establish the victim’s minority.
3. Intent and Coercion:
   • The victim’s testimony lacked evidence of any sexual advances or coercion by the appellant. Instead, the victim’s behavior during the alleged confinement and escape suggested consent rather than coercion.

Precedent Analysis

The Court referred to established legal principles emphasizing the need for:

1. Conclusive evidence of the victim’s age in cases involving allegations of minority.
2. Proof of coercion or inducement for illicit purposes under Section 366-A IPC. The Court reaffirmed that speculative evidence or inconclusive medical tests cannot form the basis for a conviction under the section.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Inconsistencies in the Victim’s Testimony:
   • The victim’s testimony contained contradictions regarding her relationship with the appellant, the alleged abduction, and her escape.
   • She admitted to not raising an alarm or resisting during the alleged confinement, which undermined the prosecution’s claim of coercion.
2. Doubtful Minority:
   • The medical evidence was inconclusive, and no documentary proof of the victim’s age was produced.
   • The Court observed that the victim’s age could not be definitively determined to be under 18 years based on the ossification test alone.
3. Lack of Evidence of Illicit Purpose:
   • The victim did not allege any sexual advances or threats of sexual violence by the appellant.
   • The appellant’s expressed desire to marry the victim, without more, did not constitute an illicit purpose under Section 366-A IPC.
4. Failure of Prosecution:
   • The prosecution failed to establish critical elements of the offense, including the victim’s minority and the appellant’s intent to exploit her.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, stating that the prosecution failed to establish the victim’s minority and coercion beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction under Section 366-A IPC was set aside, and the bail bonds were cancelled. The Court allowed the appeal and directed the parties to bear their own costs.

Implications

1. Burden of Proof: This judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must establish all elements of an offense, including minority and coercion, beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Age Determination: The Court emphasized the importance of reliable documentation, such as birth certificates, over medical tests with inherent margins of error in determining a victim’s age.
3. Protection Against Unjust Convictions: The decision highlights the need for courts to rigorously evaluate evidence and testimony to prevent wrongful convictions under provisions aimed at protecting minors.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case: Holds That Investigation Is Complete, Victim Claims Consent, and No Further Custodial Interrogation Is Required Despite Prosecution’s Argument on Minor’s Age and Statutory Offense