Section 366A IPC Penalizes Inducement Of Minor Girl Under Age Of 18 Years; Accused Can’t Be Absolved Even if There Is Consent: SC

The Appeal before the Apex Court arose from an order of the Revisional Court which confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as handed over by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asserted,“Even in the case of ossification test, it was trite that there could be a difference of two years, either way and in that circumstance, the age determination by the doctor as between 16 to 17 years does not conclusively establish that the victim was a minor child at the time of the alleged abduction.”

Senior Advocate Abhijit Basu represented the Appellant while Advocate Prerna Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged in this case that the appellant forced the victim into a jeep after having developed a friendly relationship with the family of the victim and he took her to three different locations inside the State. The abduction was allegedly done by the appellant with the intention to marry the victim. At the last location, the victim escaped and came back to her father after which the First Information Report was registered on information given by the victim to the police.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, noticed that there was no allegation of any sexual act having been committed against the victim nor even a sexual advance made. The victim also did not speak of any apprehension of the likelihood of illicit intercourse being thrust upon her by either the appellant or any other person.

The Bench noted that one of the witnesses, PW-3 who is an acquaintance of the family of the victim, had allegedly seen the abduction or rather, the victim being taken away in the jeep. However, he did not identify the appellant and strangely enough, he was not asked even to identify the jeep which was seized and produced before the Court. Other two witnesses had also turned hostile in this case. The jeep was said to be produced before the Court by the owner; whose identity was not proved and hence, there was absolutely no way to connect the appellant/accused with the jeep.

It was noticed that the location of the abduction was not visited. “We cannot find that the testimony of the witness does not have a ring of truth, and we find clear consent when she travelled with the accused. The police have also not done anything to establish the exact date of marriage of the accused and though, his wife was examined as PW 6. Her statement was only that she married the accused about one and half years back. She specifically denied having visited the house of the victim and that she knew nothing about the case”, it said while also adding, “We cannot ignore that fact that even if there is a consent, the accused cannot be absolved of a criminal liability if the child is a minor.”

The Bench further observed that no certificate to prove the date of birth of the victim was produced before the Court nor had the parents, who were examined as PWs 1 and 2 asked any question about the age of the child. “PW 7 deposed before the Court that her date of birth is 04.03.1984 and that she was studying in intermediate in 2000-2001 which makes her age to be 17 years as on the date of the alleged abduction i.e. 03.05.2001; while a specific provision under Section, 366A makes penal the inducement of a minor girl under the age of 18 years”, it held.

Noting that it wasn't conclusively established that the victim was a minor child at the time of the alleged abduction, the Bench allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant accused.

Cause Title: Akula Raghuram v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 185)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Abhijit Basu, AOR Tatini Basu, Advocate Byrapaneni Suyodhan

Respondent: Advocate Prerna Singh, AOR Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advocate Dhruv Yadav

Click here to read/download Judgment