Prosecution Failed to Prove Ingredients of Kidnapping or Abduction with Illicit Intent: Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (inducing a minor girl for illicit intercourse) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), citing insufficient evidence and procedural lapses. The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti in Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2013), emphasized the lack of essential ingredients to sustain the charges.

The appeal stemmed from a conviction upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court in 2013. The appellant was accused of abducting a minor girl with the intent of forcing her into illicit intercourse. However, the Supreme Court, after evaluating the evidence, found multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and observed that:

The prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the appellant.

The prosecution failed to conclusively establish that the prosecutrix was a minor.

Procedural lapses, including the failure to examine a key eyewitness, further weakened the case.

Criminal Law – Essential Ingredients of Sections 363 and 366-A IPC

The Court emphasized that a conviction under Section 363 IPC (kidnapping) requires proof that the victim was a minor and taken away without the consent of her lawful guardian. Similarly, Section 366-A IPC mandates evidence of abduction or inducement for illicit intercourse.

Court's Finding: "The evidence indicates that the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the appellant. Her testimony does not support the prosecution's claim of forcible abduction or any illicit intent on the appellant’s part."

The Court observed that the prosecutrix, in her cross-examination, clearly stated that she went with the appellant willingly, and no force or threat was involved.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of the doctor (PW-3), who conducted a medical examination of the prosecutrix. The doctor opined that her age was between 16 and 18 years, creating ambiguity about whether she was a minor at the time of the incident.

Court's Observation: "In the absence of conclusive evidence, the possibility of the prosecutrix being 18 years old cannot be ruled out. The benefit of doubt must be extended to the appellant."

The Supreme Court highlighted significant procedural lapses in the trial. The prosecutrix’s younger sister, Sarita, who reportedly saw the prosecutrix going with the appellant, was not examined by the prosecution.

Key Observation: "The absence of Sarita’s testimony deprives the prosecution of corroborating evidence. This failure further undermines the case, raising doubts about the credibility of the charges."

Additionally, the delay in filing the FIR—lodged nearly 28 hours after the alleged incident—was deemed unexplained and suspicious.

Judicial Principles – Gender Sensitivity and Stereotypes

The Court acknowledged the importance of gender sensitivity in cases involving sexual offences but cautioned against relying on stereotypes.

Citing the Supreme Court Handbook on Gender Stereotypes (2023):

"There is no ‘correct’ way for a victim to behave. However, in this case, the prosecutrix's clear assertion of voluntariness negates the charges of forcible abduction or illicit intent."

The Court reiterated that a lack of physical injuries or resistance does not negate sexual assault claims. Still, in this case, the prosecutrix's own testimony ruled out any coercion or illicit intent.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC, stating:

"The prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the charges beyond reasonable doubt. To sustain the conviction based on such evidence would be unjust."

The appellant was discharged from his bail bond, and the Court directed that the matter be closed.

This judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and fair trial, particularly in cases involving allegations of kidnapping and sexual offences. While the judiciary must adopt a sensitive approach to protect victims of such crimes, it must also ensure that convictions are based on credible and corroborated evidence, free from procedural lapses or stereotypes.

Date of decision : January 16, 2025