Conviction Under Section 366‑A Is Set Aside as Prosecution Fails to Prove Minority or Lack of Consent

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran heard the appeal against a revisional court order that had confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 366‑A of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal challenged the finding that the appellant had "induced" or taken away a minor girl with intent that she might be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.

The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the ingredients of Section 366‑A were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The bench noted that "there is absolutely no allegation of any sexual act having been committed against the victim nor even a sexual advance made" and found material inconsistencies in the prosecution case on both identity and age. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In this context, we have to examine Annexure A‑9‑ evidence of the Medical Officer who claimed that the age of the victim was between 16 to 17 years. The doctor specifically said that he referred PW 7 to a Radiologist and based on the report, he issued certificate at exhibit P‑7 certifying her age to be between 16 to 17 years. 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. We cannot also but notice that the Radiologist was neither examined nor was the his report marked in evidence. This seriously puts to peril the prosecution case that the victim was a minor." The Court further recorded that "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."

Background

The dispute arose from allegations that the appellant forcibly took away the victim on 03.05.2001 with a view to marry her, conduct said to attract Section 366‑A IPC. The trial court convicted the accused; the conviction was confirmed on appeal and in revision. The prosecution relied on evidence of the victim (PW7), her parents (PWs 1 and 2), an eyewitness (PW3), medical opinion (exhibit P‑7) and production of the vehicle (M.O.1). Defence counsel, led by Mr. Abhijit Basu, argued that none of the statutory ingredients of Section 366‑A were attracted: there was no allegation of sexual advances or intent to force illicit intercourse, the victim was a major, and there were material inconsistencies and hostile witnesses. The State, represented by Ms. Prerna Singh, relied on medical opinion to assert minority and contended that removal from lawful custody was established.

The Court scrutinised witness testimony and documentary proof. It found that several prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the owner and seizure formalities for the jeep were not properly proved, and PW3 did not identify the appellant or the vehicle by registration. PW7’s evidence contained contradictions on prior acquaintance, places stayed, travel details and dates; her statement also reflected that she had not created an outcry and had travelled with the appellant without clear protest. On age, the medical officer’s certificate placed age between 16–17 years but the radiologist’s report was not produced and ossification tests carry a two‑year margin of error. On these facts, the Court concluded that minority and absence of consent were not established beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence under Section 366‑A were set aside and the appellant was acquitted. The Court ordered that "Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand cancelled" and directed parties to bear their own costs. No interim directions beyond disposal were noted.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 294/2015 (2025 INSC 185) Case Title: Akula Raghuram v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhijit Basu, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Ms. Prerna Singh, Learned Standing Counsel

New Delhi; February 11, 2025.