The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the provisions of Sections 361 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be applied if the victim is above 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offense. The Court also emphasized that delays in identifying accused persons can raise significant doubts about the prosecution’s case.
This ruling came in the case of Venkatesha & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2014), where the appellants were accused of abducting a woman in 1997. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on February 21, 1997, in which the victim (PW-2), a college student, was allegedly abducted from the Srinivasapur bus stand in Karnataka by the main accused, Reddappa, and others. The victim’s companions, PW-7 and PW-9, reported the incident to her mother (PW-1), who lodged a complaint at the Srinivasapur Police Station.
The police alleged that the victim was forcibly taken in a car to a house in Tamil Nadu, where she was confined. During a search operation, the police rescued the victim and arrested three of the accused. The other accused were not apprehended at the time.
The Trial Court convicted six of the accused under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping or abduction to compel marriage) and sentenced them to five years of rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Karnataka High Court modified the conviction to Section 363 IPC (kidnapping from lawful guardianship) and reduced the sentence to one year of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000 for each accused.
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s judgment, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
1. Applicability of IPC Sections 361 and 363:
– Section 361 IPC defines kidnapping from lawful guardianship and applies to males under 16 and females under 18 years of age.
– The defense argued that the victim was 19 years old at the time of the incident, rendering these sections inapplicable.
2. Credibility of Identification Evidence:
– The prosecution failed to conduct an identification parade, even though the trial commenced eight years after the incident.
– The victim identified the accused for the first time during the trial, raising questions about the reliability of this evidence.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Justice B.R. Gavai, in his remarks, stated, “Sections 361 and 363 IPC could not have been invoked when the victim was above 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offense. The evidence of the prosecution itself reveals this fact, rendering the conviction unsustainable.”
The Court highlighted the absence of an identification parade for the accused, despite a significant delay of eight years between the incident and the trial. This failure, the Court noted, severely undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
The Court cited its decision in Sannaia Subba Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2018), emphasizing that “first-time identification of accused persons during trial diminishes its reliability and raises serious doubts regarding the prosecution’s version.”
The Court also noted that the victim knew only the main accused, Reddappa, from her village and had no prior acquaintance with the other accused. This fact, coupled with the lack of procedural safeguards, further weakened the prosecution’s case.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment and acquitted the appellants. Justice Gavai remarked that the evidence on record failed to meet the standards required for a conviction under Sections 361 and 363 IPC.
The Court concluded, “In the absence of reliable evidence and adherence to procedural safeguards, the conviction cannot stand.”
It also observed that the long delay in conducting the trial, combined with the flawed identification process, cast a shadow over the fairness of the proceedings.
As a result, the appellants’ convictions were quashed, and their bail bonds discharged.
Representation
The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Shekhar G. Devasa, with support from advocates Manish Tiwari and Thashmishtha Mothanna. The State of Karnataka was represented by Additional Advocate General Avishkar Singhvi, assisted by advocates V.N. Raghupathy and Vivek Kumar Singh.
