Proof Of Actual Physical Restriction Is Not Essential To Prove Charge Of Wrongful Confinement U/S. 365 IPC: Chhattisgarh HC
|The Chattisgarh High Court held that proof of actual physical restriction is not essential to establish the charge of wrongful confinement under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
An Individual was convicted of kidnapping and raping a woman under Sections 365 and 376(2)(n) by the Trial Court. However, the High Court overturned the conviction and noted that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court emphasized that to establish wrongful confinement, it is sufficient to prove that the victim perceives the situation as one where they cannot leave freely.
The Bench headed by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and comprising Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed, “To prove charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical restriction is not essential. It is sufficient if the evidence shows that such an impression was produced in the mind if the accused as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim”.
Advocate Dharmesh Shrivastava appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Pawan Kesharwani appeared for the Respondent/ State.
Per the Prosecution, the Accused raped the Prosecutrix twice on the false pretext of marriage. Subsequently, the wife of the accused, his brother and sister-in-law came and abused her. They also assaulted her, causing injuries to her face and back. The Prosecutrix's uncle later came and took her home. The police registered a case and arrested the Accused.
The Trial Court convicted him of offences under Sections 365 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him to 07 years of rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Court by way of Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction order.
The Court framed the following issues:
“Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 365 of the IPC ? Whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence under Sections 376 (2) (n) of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant herein?”
The Court noted that Section 365 of the IPC deals with an aggravated form of kidnapping or abduction. It applies when the act is committed with the intent to secretly and wrongfully confine the victim. The section is triggered, for example, when a person is abducted for ransom.
The Court noted, “The essence of the offence under Section 365 of the IPC embodies an aggravated form of offence of kidnapping as defined in Sections 360 and 361 and of abduction as defined in Section 362 IPC. Section 365 is attracted when the kidnapping or abduction is committed with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine the victim. Section 365 of the IPC lays down that where a person was abducted in order to that he might be held to ransom by his abductors, it was held that this section is applicable”.
To establish a case under Section 365, the Bench observed that the prosecution needs to prove: (i) the accused's involvement in the kidnapping or abduction, and (ii) the accused's intention for the kidnapped or abducted person to be kept in wrongful or secret confinement.
The Court emphasized that abduction is a crucial element for the offence, and proof of actual physical restriction is not mandatory to establish wrongful confinement; it suffices if the evidence indicates the accused's intention to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim. The accused's intention can be inferred from their subsequent acts and conduct.
“To prove the ingredients of Section 365 of the IPC, it is essential that there should be abduction, if no abduction is there; the offence under Section 365 of the IPC is not made out… The intention can be inferred from the subsequent acts and conduct of the kidnapper or abductor”, the Bench observed.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the charge under Section 365 of the IPC was not substantiated. The Bench expressed the view that the Trial Court had erred in convicting the Appellant under Section 365 of the IPC.
The Court observed that the Prosecution had failed to prove the charges of kidnapping and rape beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bench observed that the victim's testimony was unreliable and inconsistent, and there was no corroborating evidence to support her claims.
Accordingly, the Court acquitted the Appellant and set aside the order of the Trial Court.
Cause Title: Yakub Khan v State of Chhattisgarh