Mere Abduction Insufficient To Constitute Offence U/S 366 IPC; Must Prove Intent To Compel Marriage Or Illicit Intercourse: Chhattisgarh HC

The prosecution's case detailed that the accused, a distant relative of the minor, allegedly attempted to abduct her twice in November 2022. The first attempt was thwarted by the minor's mother and another individual. Following this, the accused faced charges including death threats and kidnapping, alongside Sections 376 IPC (rape) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The accused was initially convicted in 2024 by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (abduction), 506(ii) (criminal intimidation), and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. However, the High Court partially overturned the conviction concerning Section 366 IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held, “Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal provision. So far as charge under Section 366 of the IPC is concerned, mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.”

Advocate Gurudev I. Sharan appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Malay Jain appeared for the Respondent.

The Court noted discrepancies between the victim's statements and the evidence. The victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC to the magistrate mentioned only abduction, not rape, whereas her Section 161 CrPC statement to the police included rape allegations. Additionally, medical reports indicated no signs of physical injury or sexual intercourse. The victim's father had also not mentioned rape in his FIR despite knowing about it.

Given these inconsistencies and the lack of substantive evidence to support the claims of sexual assault or abduction for the purposes outlined in Section 366 IPC, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions under Sections 366 IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act.

Cause Title: Thanda Ram Sidar v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2024:CGHC:26587-DB]

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Gurudev I. Sharan, Shubham Dewangan, and Seema Verma