Section 366A of the IPC punishes the act of enticing a girl under 18 years old. The Supreme Court stated that the accused cannot be cleared of charges even if the girl gives her consent.
The Supreme Court noted that Section 366-A of the IPC punishes the inducement of a minor girl under 18 years old, and the accused cannot avoid criminal responsibility even if there is consent. The appeal to the Supreme Court came from a Revisional Court’s decision that upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as decided by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. The Division Bench, including Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, stated, “Even with an ossification test, there can be a two-year difference, so a doctor’s age estimate of 16 to 17 years does not definitively prove that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged abduction.”
Senior Advocate Abhijit Basu represented the Appellant, while Advocate Prerna Singh represented the Respondent. In this case, it was claimed that the appellant forced the victim into a jeep after becoming friendly with her family and took her to three different places within the State. The abduction was allegedly intended for marriage. At the final location, the victim managed to escape and returned to her father, leading to the registration of a First Information Report based on her account to the police.
The court initially observed that there were no claims of any sexual acts or advances made towards the victim. The victim did not express any fear of being subjected to illegal sexual activity by the appellant or anyone else. The court noted that a witness, PW-3, who knew the victim’s family, claimed to have seen the victim being taken away in a jeep. However, he could not identify the appellant and was not asked to identify the jeep that was presented in court. The other two witnesses also did not support the case. The jeep was brought to court by its owner, whose identity was not confirmed, making it impossible to link the appellant to the vehicle.
The court pointed out that the site of the alleged abduction was not examined. It stated, “We cannot conclude that the witness’s testimony lacks credibility, and we see clear consent when the victim traveled with the accused. The police also failed to determine the exact date of the accused’s marriage. Although his wife was called as PW-6, she only mentioned marrying him about a year and a half ago. She denied ever visiting the victim’s home and claimed to know nothing about the case.” The court added, “We must acknowledge that even with consent, the accused cannot escape criminal responsibility if the victim is a minor.”
The Bench noted that no certificate was presented to verify the victim’s date of birth, and the parents, who testified as PWs 1 and 2, did not inquire about the child’s age. “PW 7 stated in court that her date of birth is 04.03.1984 and that she was in intermediate school during 2000-2001, making her 17 years old on the date of the alleged abduction, 03.05.2001. Section 366A specifically penalizes the inducement of a minor girl under 18 years,” the Bench stated. Since it was not clearly proven that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged abduction, the Bench allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title: Akula Raghuram v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 185)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Abhijit Basu, AOR Tatini Basu, Advocate Byrapaneni Suyodhan
Respondent: Advocate Prerna Singh, AOR Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advocate Dhruv Yadav
