MANJAPPA & ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 1095 · Decided: 08-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 1095 
MANJAPPA & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2007 etc.) 
SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss. 366-A, 372 and 373 rlw s.34 - Kidnapping of a minor c 
girl with an intention to force her to illicit intercourse and 
selling her for purpose of prostitution - HELD: In view of the 
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, High Courl rightly set 
aside acquittal of one of the accused, confirmed the conviction 
of two, and imposed the sentence of 7 years imprisonment 
0 
with a fine of Rs. 50, QOOI- upon each of the three accused -
In a case of this nature, it is just and proper to impose a 
deterrent sentence - Sentence/sentencing. 
The two appellants (A-3) and (A-2) along with A-1 
were prosecuted for committing offences of kidnapping 
E 
a minor girl with an intention to force her to have illicit 
intercourse, and then selling her for purposes of 
prostitution. The trial court convicted and sentenced A-1 
and A-2 ulss 366A, 372 and 373 read with s.34 IPC. On 
the appeals filed by the State for enhancement of 
F 
sentences of A-1 and A-2 and challenging acquittal of A-
3, the High Court convicted A-3 also and sentenced him 
to imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 
50,0001- and enhanced the sentences of A-1 and A-2 to 
seven years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,0001- each. 
G 
Aggrieved, A-3 and A-2 filed the appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
1095 
H 
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. All the three sections, viz. ss 366-A, 372 
and 373 IPC, make it clear that if the victim is under the 
age of 18 years and whoever uses, procures, employs, 
buys or hires such person for prostitution or for illicit 
intercourse with any person or for any immoral purpose 
B is liable to be punished. The maximum sentence 
prescribed is 10 years and also the fine. In the instant 
case, Medical Report dated 28.8.1997 clearly shows that 
the victim girl was at the time of occurrence below 18 
years of age. [paras 4 and 5) (1099-C-D; G] 
c 
1.2. The High Court, after appreciating the evidence 
of PW.1, the father of the victim, PWs. 3 and PW.4 who 
accompanied the police party to rescue the girl and PW.2, 
the victim herself, rightly confirmed the conviction and 
enhanced the sentence to 7 years with a fine of Rs. 
D 50,000/- each. Though leniency in sentence was pleaded, 
but in view of the conduct of the accused in taking a minor 
girl to a far away place, namely, Bombay, and selling her 
for illegal and immoral purposes, it is not a fit case for 
reduction of sentence. In a case of this nature, it is just 
E and proper that a deterrent sentence is to be imposed on 
the accused. Looking from any angle and considering the 
fact that the victim was below 18 years as on the date of 
occurrence, the sentence of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 
50,000/- awarded by the High Court is quite reasonable 
F and acceptable. [paras 5- 6) (1099-G-H; 1100-A-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal . 
No. 653 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 06.02.2006 of the High 
G Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 624 
of 1999. 
WITH 
H 
Criminal Appeal No. 735 of 2008. 
MANJAPPA & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
1097 
Shankar Divate for the Appellant. 
A 
Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. These appeals are directed 
B 
against the judgment and final order dated 06.02.2006 passed 
by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 624 and 616of1999 whereby the High Court allowed the 
appeals filed by the State of Karnataka - respondent herein and 
convicted the appellants herein for the offences punishable 
C 
under Sections 366A, 372, 373 read with Section 34 1.P.C. and 
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven 
years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default, to undergo 
simple imprisonment for two years. 
2. The case of the prosecution is as under: 
(a) On 03.04.1997, Hanumanthappa, father of the victim, 
lodged a complaint alleging that his daughter Shilpa, aged 13 
years, was kidnapped by the appellants herein on 24.01.1997 
D 
at about 11.00 a.m. from his house and they had taken her to 
E 
Bombay with an intention to force her to have illicit intercourse 
and thereafter, had sold the victim to Shanta (A-1) at Bombay 
for Rs.5000/- for the purpose of prostitution and for immoral 
pur

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