2021 INSC 0641
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1938 OF 2010
MOHAMMED YOUSUFF @ MOULA & ANR.      …APPELLANTS
       
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA                  … RESPONDENT
     
J U D G M E N T   
N. V. R AMANA , J.   
1. The   instant   appeal,   by   way   of   special   leave,   is   directed
against judgment and order dated 11.09.2008 passed by the
High   Court   of   Karnataka   at   Bangalore   whereby   the   High
Court   dismissed   the   Criminal   Appeal   No.   128   of   2005   filed
by the appellants herein (accused nos. 1 and 2) and affirmed
the order passed by the trial court.
2. Brief   facts   of   the   case   are   as   follows:   The   appellants­
accused were tenants of PW­7 (complainant). Accused no. 1
is the brother of accused no. 2 and accused no. 3 is the wife
of accused no. 2. When accused no.1 expressed his desire to
marry   PW­8   (victim­   the   daughter   of   the   PW­7),   they   were
evicted   from   the   house.   On   13.07.2002   at   8.00   P.M.,   while
the   victim   had   gone  to   the   market  to   purchase  a   notebook, REPORTABLE

2
the   appellants   forcibly   took   her   to   Punganur   (Chittoor
District)   where   allegedly   accused   no.1   married   PW­8   in   a
mosque.     The   father   (PW­7)   got   a   telephone   call   from
accused   no.2   and   accused   no.3   that   they   have   kidnapped
his   daughter   and   marriage   ceremony   has   been   conducted
between   PW­8   (victim)   and   accused   no.   1.   Pursuant   to   the
same,   PW­7   lodged   a   complaint   before   the   police   on   the
same day.
3. On   22.07.2002,   accused   no.   1   was   apprehended   while   he
was in the company of the victim and later on accused no.2
and   accused   no.3   were   also   apprehended.     Accused   no.4
and accused no.5 were the persons who had given shelter to
accused no.1 and the  victim. The accused were charged for
committing   offences   punishable   under   Sections   366,   343,
323 and 506 read with Sections 114 and 34 of IPC.
4. The trial court convicted the appellants and sentenced them
to   undergo   Rigorous   Imprisonment   for   3   years   for   offence
punishable   under   Section   366   IPC,   Rigorous   Imprisonment
for 3 months for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC,
Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months for offence punishable
under   Section   343   IPC   and   Rigorous   Imprisonment   for   one
year   for   offence   punishable   under   Section   506   IPC.
Aggrieved,   the   appellants   preferred   an   appeal   before   the

3
High   Court   and   the   same   was   dismissed   vide   impugned
judgment dated 11.09.2008. Hence, the present appeal. 
5. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   vehemently   contended
that   the   victim   was   of   18   years   of   age   at   the   time   of   the
incident,   and   she   had   willingly   accompanied   the   accused
persons.     It   was   further   submitted   that   the   eye­witnesses
have not stated that the victim was forced into the rickshaw.
  
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent­State
supported the impugned judgment passed by the High Court
and   argued   that   the   victim   was   a   minor   at   the   time   of   the
said offence. 
7. Having   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   at   length   it   is
pertinent for us to have a look at Section 366 which reads as
follows:
366.   Kidnapping,   abducting   or
inducing   woman   to   compel   her
marriage,   etc .—Whoever   kidnaps   or
abducts   any   woman   with   intent   that   she
may   be   compelled,   or   knowing   it   to   be
likely that she will be compelled, to marry
any   person   against   her   will,   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,   shall   be   punished
with   imprisonment   of   either   description
for a term which may extend to ten years,
and   shall   also   be   liable   to   fine;   and
whoever,   by   means   of   criminal
intimidation as defined in this Code or of
abuse of authority or any other method of

4
compulsion,   induces   any   woman   to   go
from   any   place   with   intent   that   she   may
be,   or   knowing   that   it   is   likely   that   she
will   be,   forced   or   seduced   to   illicit
intercourse   with   another   person   shall
also be punishable as aforesaid.
8. Chapter   XVI   of   IPC   contains   offences   against   the   human
body.   Section   366,   which   is   the   pertinent   provision,   is
contained   within   this   Chapter.   Kidnapping/abduction
simpliciter   is   defined   under   Section   359   and   maximum
punishment for the same extends up to seven years and fine
as   provided   under   Section   363.   However,   if   the   kidnapping
is done with an intent of begging, to murder, for ransom, to
induce   women   to   marry,   to   have   illicit   intercourse   stricter
punishments   are   provided   from   Section   363A   to   Section
369. 
9. Section   366   clearly   states   that   whoever   kidnaps/abducts
any   woman   with   the   intent   that   she   may   be   compelled   or
knowing that she will be compelled, to either get her married
or   forced/seduced   to   have   illicit   intercourse   they   shall   be
punished with imprisonment of up to ten years and fine. The
aforesaid   Section   requires   the   prosecution   not   only   to   lead
evidence   to   prove   kidnapping   simpliciter ,   but   also   requires
them   to   lead   evidence   to   portray   the   abovementioned
specific   intention   of   the   kidnapper.   Therefore,   in   order   to

5
constitute an offence under Section 366, besides proving the
factum   of   the   abduction,   the   prosecution   has   to   prove   that
the said abduction was for one of the purposes mentioned in
the   section.   In   this   case   at   hand   the   prosecution   was   also
required   to   prove   that   there   was   compulsion   on   the   part   of
the  accused persons  to get the  victim  married. [See   Kavita
Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra , (2018) 6
SCC 664]. 
10. After carefully perusing the material placed before us, we are
of   the   considered   view   that   the   thrust   of   the   submissions
made by the appellants on the age of the victim. The father
of the victim had specifically stated that, the victim was aged
around 15 years at the time of the incident. It is pertinent to
note   that   the   investigating   officer   had   collected   the   original
marksheet, which was duly  attested by  the  headmistress of
the school where the victim was enrolled and thereafter, the
same was annexed to the charge sheet. Even while deposing
before   the   court,   the   investigating   officer   had   produced   the
original   certificates   along   with   the   office   file.   On   the
contrary,   the   accused   appellants   failed   to   produce   any
evidence rebutting the validity of the aforesaid contention.
11. The  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  appellants   further  relied  upon
the   earlier   decision   of   this   Court   in   S.   Varadarajan   v.

6
State of Madras ,  (1965) 1 SCR 243 to argue that the victim
voluntarily   joined   the   accused.   However,   we   are   unable   to
agree with the aforesaid contention raised by the appellants
as the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable.
12. In   the   present   case,   the   victim   (PW­8)   has   clearly   deposed
that   accused   nos.1   to   3   took   her   forcibly,   and   wrongfully
confined   her   in   a   house   where   the   sister   of   accused   nos.1
and 2 was residing.  In the course of cross­examination, the
defense   has   not   brought   out   anything   much   less   any
contradictions   to   disbelieve   or   discard   her   evidence   in   this
regard.
13. Furthermore,   the   appellants   have   argued   that   the   actual
performance   of   the   marriage   could   not   be   proved   as   the
nikah   certificate   was   incomplete   and   did   not   contain   the
relevant   information   and   the   signatures.   However,   it   ought
to   be   noted   that,   the   language   of   Section   366   does   not
require   the   factum   of   marriage   to   be   proved,   in   order   to
constitute   an   offence   under   Section   366,   the   prosecution
has   to   show   that   the   kidnapping/abduction   was   done   in
furtherance   of   an   intent   to   compel   the   victim   to   marry
against her will.
14. The facts of the present case indicate that, PW­2 (Khazi) had
recognized   both   the   accused   no.1   and   victim   (PW­8).

7
Moreover, the complainant (PW­7) has clearly stated that on
13.07.2002,   when   the   victim   did   not   return   to   the   house
after   purchasing   the   notebook,   he   lodged   a   missing
complaint   the   very   next   day   after   enquiring   from   all
relatives.   He   deposed   that   three   days   after   lodging   of   the
missing   complaint,   on   17.07.2002,   accused   nos.   2   and   3
spoke to him over the telephone that they had performed the
marriage   of   the   victim   with   accused   no.1.   The   complainant
had   further   stated   that,   the   accused   person   on   prior
occasion   used   to   tease   the   victim   and   had   expressed   the
desire   to   marry   her.   The   appellants   could   not   produce   any
material   contradiction   so   as   to   render   his   statements
unworthy. Lastly, statements of PW­7 find support from that
of PW­8 (victim).  
15. In the light of the admitted facts, it could be understood that
appellants­accused   had   intentionally   kidnapped   PW­8   to
perform   the   marriage.   Lastly,   considering   the   fact   that,   the
victim was pushed by the accused persons and was made to
forcibly board the autorickshaw. The victim also stated that
she   was   forcibly   confined   in   house   of   the   sister   of   accused
no.1,   with   legs   tied,   beyond   three   days.   Moreover,   during
this   entire   ordeal,   the   victim   was   under   constant   threat   of
her  physical  safety.  She  has  cited  multiple  instances  where

8
she was physically harmed by the accused persons. Thus, it
is   evident   that   the   ingredients   of   offences   under   Sections
343,   323   and   506   of   I.P.C   are   also   satisfied.   In   view   of   the
above,   we   see   no   reason   to   interfere   with   the   impugned
order   passed   by   the   High   Court   affirming   the   order   passed
by   the   trial   court,   especially   when   the   sentence   awarded   is
already on a lenient side.
16. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
17. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeal, the bail bonds of
the   appellants,   who   were   granted   bail   by   this   Court   vide
order   dated   05.10.2010,   stand   cancelled   and   they   are
directed to surrender before the concerned trial court within
a   period   of   two   months   from   the   date   of   communication   of
this   order,   to   serve   out   the   remaining   period   of   sentence,
failing which the concerned police authorities are directed to
take them into custody for the said purpose.
 
                      .........................J.
(N.V. RAMANA)
      ........................J.
 (S. ABDUL NAZEER)
 ........................J.
 (SURYA KANT)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 22, 2020.