In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has emphasized that not every abduction of a minor female automatically constitutes an offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court underscored the necessity of examining the accused’s intention behind the abduction to determine the applicability of Section 366 IPC. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal in the case of Thanda Ram Sidar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 595 of 2024).
Background of the Case
The case involved Thanda Ram Sidar, a 24-year-old resident of Onki village, Orissa, who was accused of abducting a minor girl, aged 14, on multiple occasions. The complainant, Mayadhar Sidar, the victim’s father, reported that on the night of November 17, 2022, Thanda Ram took his daughter away on a motorcycle. The girl was brought back the next day. However, on November 28, 2022, Thanda Ram again attempted to abduct her but was intercepted by the victim’s mother and a neighbor. The accused allegedly threatened to kill them if they intervened.
The police registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 506 (criminal intimidation), 366 (abduction with intent to compel marriage or illicit intercourse), and 376 (rape) of the IPC, along with Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issues before the court were:
1. Determination of the Victim’s Age: Whether the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.
2. Applicability of Section 366 IPC: Whether the abduction was with the intent to compel the victim to marry or engage in illicit intercourse.
3. Evidence of Rape: Whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the charge of rape under Section 376 IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act.
Court’s Decision
The court meticulously analyzed the evidence presented, including the victim’s statements, medical reports, and witness testimonies. Here are the key observations and decisions:
Victim’s Age
The court confirmed that the victim was a minor, aged 14, based on the certified copy of the Dakhil Kharij Register from the Government Primary School, Choteloram, which recorded her date of birth as August 8, 2008.
Conviction Under Section 363 IPC
The court upheld the conviction under Section 363 IPC, noting that the accused had indeed taken the minor from her lawful guardianship without consent. The court emphasized that the act of taking or enticing a minor out of the keeping of their lawful guardian constitutes kidnapping under this section.
Acquittal Under Section 366 IPC
The court set aside the conviction under Section 366 IPC, stating that mere abduction does not suffice to constitute an offence under this section. The prosecution must prove that the abduction was with the intent to compel the victim to marry or engage in illicit intercourse. The court found no evidence to support such intent in this case. The court observed:
“In order to constitute an offence under Section 366, besides proving the factum of abduction, the prosecution has to prove that the said abduction was for one of the purposes mentioned in the section. Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal provision.”
Acquittal Under Section 376 IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act
The court also acquitted the accused of charges under Section 376 IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The medical examination and forensic evidence did not support the allegations of rape. The court noted the absence of any physical injuries or signs of sexual intercourse on the victim, and the forensic report did not find any semen stains or human sperm on the victim’s clothing or body.
