KAVITA CHANDRAKANT LAKHANI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 994 · Decided: 24-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
KAVITA CHANDRAKANT LAKHANI
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 2016)
APRIL 24, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.366 – Framing of charge under – When
not justified – FIR registered by appellant against Respondent no.2,
with whom she was in relationship earlier – Appellant stated that
on the fateful night when she and Respondent no.2 were in a party,
after the party finished, Respondent no.2 on the pretext of dropping
her to the venue for dinner, drove her to his home and when on
reaching there appellant refused to come out of the car, Respondent
no.2 forcibly lifted her up, took her to his house and started beating
her – Later, appellant gave further statement that she was also
molested by Respondent no.2 – Charge sheet filed – Respondent
no.2 discharged inter alia in respect of offence u/s.366 – On appeal,
held: For charge u/s.366, 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 to marry any
person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit
intercourse– In the instant case, primary allegations made by
appellant were that Respondent No. 2 forcibly took her to his house,
first expressed his love for her and then started beating her which
fact is evident on record – However, one week thereafter appellant
made out a case of molestation stating that it was not stated earlier
due to embarrassment – This does not inspire confidence as the FIR
was lodged by appellant, five days after the incident, with due
deliberation, and why within one week she thought of mentioning
about molestation and did not feel embarrassed then – Even if it is
proved that Respondent No. 2 forcibly took her to his house, the
later version that his intention was to marry her or to force or seduce
her to illicit intercourse was clearly an afterthought – Charge u/
s.366 against respondent no.2 is not maintainable.
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 994
994
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
995
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  In order to constitute the offence of ‘abduction’
a person must be carried off illegally by force or deception, that
is, to compel a person by force or deceitful means to induce to go
from one place to another.  The intention of the accused is the
basis and the gravamen of an offence under this Section. The
volition, the intention and the conduct of the accused determine
the offence, and the intent of the accused is the vital question for
determination in each case. Once the necessary intent of the
accused is established, the offence is complete, whether or not
the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose, and whether or
not the woman consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse.
Apart from this, to constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC,
it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused
induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from
any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means. So far as
charge under Section 366 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. Unless the
prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes
mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused
guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC.[Paras 10-12][1000-
E-H; 1001-A-B]
1.2 One week after the FIR was got registered under
various Sections of the IPC, a further statement was given by the
appellant, after explaining the facts to her mother wherein the
appellant made out a case of being molested. Her explanation
that it was not stated earlier due to embarrassment does not
inspire confidence as FIR was lodged five days after the incident
and, therefore, she lodged the same with due deliberation. Again,
why within one week thereafter she thought of mentioning about
the molestation and did not feel embarrassed now? There is no
explanation for that. The act of pulling out the appellant from the
car of Respondent No. 2 was witnessed by the watchman. In this
KAVITA CHANDRAKANT LAKHANI v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
996
SUPREME

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.