Introduction 

This is a landmark judgment which lays down that mere abduction does not bring the offender within the ambit of Section 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.  

• This judgment was delivered by a 2-judge bench comprising of Justice AK Sikri and Justice RK Agarwal 

Facts 

• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the Appellant against Respondent No. 2. 
• The FIR provided that the Appellant was in a birthday party along with the friends. 
• After finishing the party, Respondent No. 2, on the pretext of dropping the appellant to the venue for dinner, with whom she was in a relationship earlier, drove her to his home in Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. 
• The Appellant refused to come out of the car and the Respondent No 2 forcibly lifted her and took her to his house and put her on bed. 
• Respondent no 2 removed all her clothes and started beating her using his waist belt and touching her inappropriately on her private parts in order to outrage her modesty. 
• A chargesheet was filed before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 363, 342,324,354,323 and 506 (Part II) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• A Discharge Application was preferred by the Respondent No 2 stating that no offence is made out under Section 363 of IPC. 
• Journey of the case in the Lower Courts 
  • 03.10.2006= Learned ACMM rejected the discharge application and committed the case to the Court of Session. 
  • Being aggrieved by the above Respondent No. 2 preferred Revision application before the Court of Session. (1261 of 2006) 
  • Respondent no. 2 also filed an application for discharge under Section 366 of IPC and for remanding the matter back to the lower Court. (244 of 2007) 
  • 10.04.2007= the Sessions Court rejected the Application 244 of 2007. 
  • Aggrieved by order dated 03.10.2006 and order dated 10.04.2007 Respondent No 2 preferred a criminal application before the High Court. 
  • Respondent No 2 however withdrew the same with a request that the trial should not proceed till the disposal of application no 1261 of 2006. 
  • The High Court stayed the proceedings. 
  • 04.07.2007= the Learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 03.10.2006 and discharged the Respondent no 2 not only in respect of offence under Section 366 of IPC but also under Section 363 and 506 (ii) of IPC. 
  • Writ petition was filed against the order dated 04.07.2007 and the same was dismissed by order dated 06.05.2013 
  • Aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.05.2013 the appellant preferred the appeal before this Court. 

Issue Involved  

• Whether in the present facts the appellant has made out a case under Section 366 of IPC? 

Observations 

• Section 366 of IPC provides for the offence of Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage etc. 
• In order to constitute the offence of ‘abduction’ a person must be carried off illegally by force or deception, that is, to compel a person by force or deceitful means to induce to go from one place to another. 
• Thus, the intention of the accused is the gravamen of the offence. 
• Once the intent of the accused is established the offence is complete, whether or not accused succeeded in effecting his purpose and whether or not the woman consented to marriage or illicit intercourse. 
• Mere abduction does not bring the accused within the ambit of this provision.  
  • It is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the woman and such inducement was by deceitful means. 
  • Also, such abduction took place with the intent that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction. 
• Unless this intention is not proved a person cannot be held liable under Section 366 of IPC. 
• The above law was applied on the facts as follows: 
  • The act of pulling out of the Respondent No 2 was witnesses by the watchman hence the allegations are confined to the aspect that the Respondent No 2 was forcibly taken to his house. 
  • However, the allegations of removing the clothes and touching her inappropriately were added afterwards. 
  • Thus, the Court held that mere abduction will not bring the offence within the ambit of Section 366. 
  • Further, it was observed that the allegation regarding molestation was made only after one week of the registration of FIR. 
  • The Court held that the explanation for delay regarding the same is not properly explained and the explanation does not inspire confidence. 
  • The Court held that even though it can be proved that the Appellant was forcibly taken to the house of Respondent No 2 but the intention was to marry her or to force or seduce her is clearly an afterthought.   
• The Court hence concluded the following: 
  • The charge under Section 366 of IPC is not maintainable. 
  • Since the matter was pending since 2003 the Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within 6 months from the passing of the judgment. 
  • The observations in this case were for the purpose of applicability of Section 366 of IPC only and the Trial Court shall decide the matter on merits. 

Conclusion 

• This judgment lays down the conditions for constituting an offence under Section 366 of IPC. 
• This case conclusively establishes that for establishing an offence under Section 366 of IPC mere abduction is not enough, rather requisite intention on the part of the accused also has to be proved. 

[Original Judgment]