REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 653 OF 2007
Manjappa .... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Karnataka .... Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2008
Vijay M.S. Balakrishna Madiwalar .... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Karnataka .... Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) These appeals are directed 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 616
of 1999 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals filed by
the State of Karnataka – respondent herein and convicted the
1
appellants herein for the offences punishable under Sections
366A, 372, 373 read with Section 34 I.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
at about 11.00 a.m. from his house and they had taken her to
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 purposes. On the strength of the said complaint,
Kumarapatnam Police registered a case in Crime No. 41 of
1997 and started investigation. On 24.04.1997, on receiving
information about the victim, the Investigation Officer had
gone to Bombay along with the panch witnesses and the
complainant, traced out the girl and the appellants herein and
returned to Kumarapatnam Police Station on 27.04.1997. On
2
the same day, the statement of the victim Shilpa was recorded
and she was sent to the C.G. Hospital Davanagere for medical
examination. The appellants herein and Shanta were arrested
on 27.04.1997 and charged for the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 366A, 372, 373 read with 34 I.P.C.
(b) The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its
case and marked several documents. By order dated
03.02.1999, the Sessions Judge convicted Shanta (A-1) and
Vijay M.S.Balakrishna Madiwalar (A-2) (appellant in Crl. A.
No.735/2008) for the offences punishable under Sections
366A, 372, 373 read with section 34 I.P.C. and acquitted
Manjappa (A-3) (appellant in Crl.A. 653/07). Against the said
order, the State preferred an appeal against the acquittal of A-
3 and another for enhancement of the sentence of A-1 and A-2
before the High Court. The High Court, vide its judgment
dated 06.02.2006, allowed both the appeals of the State
confirmed the conviction of A-1 and A-2 and enhanced the
sentence of imprisonment for a period of seven years with a
fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default, S.I. for two years and set
aside the acquittal of A-3 and convicted him for the offences
3
punishable under Sections 366A, 372, 373 read with Section
34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a
period of seven years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default S.I.
for two years. Challenging the impugned judgment of the High
Court, A-3 filed Crl.A. No. 653 of 2007 and A-2 filed Crl.A. No.
735 of 2008 before this Court.
3) Heard Mr. Shankar Divate, learned counsel for the
appellants and Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel for the
State of Karnataka.
4) Among the three accused, Manjappa (A-3) and Vijay M.S.
Balakrishna Madiwalar (A-2) are before us. As already noticed,
the appellants, along with one Shanta (A-1) were charged for
committing offences punishable under Sections 366A, 372,
373 read with 34 IPC. Since the learned counsel for the
appellants argued only for reduction of sentence, let us first
understand the offences and the sentence, as fixed in the IPC.
Section 366A relates to procuration of minor girl. As per the
section, whoever induces any minor girl under the age of 18
years to go from any place or to do any act, forces or seduces
to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable
4
with imprisonment up to 10 years and also liable to fine.
Section 372 speaks of selling minor for purposes of
prostitution. Here again, whoever involves in disposal of any
person under the age of 18 years for the purpose of
prostitution or illicit intercourse or for any unlawful and
immoral purpose shall be punished with imprisonment up to
10 years and also liable to fine. Section 373 speaks about
buying minor for purposes of prostitution. This section also
makes it clear that whoever buys or obtains possession of any
person under the age of 18 years with an intention to employ
or use such person for the purpose of prostitution or illicit
intercourse or for any unlawful or immoral purpose is liable to
be punished up to 10 years and also liable to fine. All the
three sections 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 are liable to be
punished. The maximum sentence prescribed is 10 years and
also liable to fine.
5
5) In order to establish the prosecution case, apart from
examining PW-1, father of the victim, PWs-3 and 4 who
accompanied the policemen to Bombay, victim herself was
examined as PW-2. In her evidence, she informed that at the
time of occurrence in 1997 she was studying in 6th standard
and her date of birth is 31.07.1985. She also narrated how
these accused persons took her to Bombay on the assurance
that they would get a job for her. She also explained that after
reaching Bombay, A-2 and A-3 had sold her for a sum of Rs.
5,000/-. She informed the Court that A-1 used to purchase
girls and engage them for immoral purposes. She asserted
that A-1 used to engage her daily for prostitution against her
wish. Medical Report dated 28.08.1997 (Annexure P-2) clearly
shows that she is below 18 years of age. From her date of
birth, it can easily be presumed that at the time of occurrence
i.e. in 1997, she was below 18 years. Her father, PW-1, also
explained how his daughter was taken to Bombay and the
agony undergone by her. PWs 3 and 4, both accompanied the
policemen to Bombay were examined as panch witnesses.
Considering the prosecution witnesses, particularly, PW-2,
6
whose statement and assertion are acceptable, the High Court
rightly confirmed the conviction and enhanced the sentence to
7 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each. Though learned
counsel for the appellants pleaded for leniency in view of the
conduct of the accused/appellants in taking a minor girl to a
far away place, namely, Bombay and sold her for illegal and
immoral purposes, we feel that it is not a fit case for reduction
of sentence. In a case of this nature, it is just and proper that
a deterrent sentence is to be imposed on the accused.
6) 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 and acceptable. There is no
valid ground for interference in the quantum of sentence.
Both the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.
……………………………………J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
…………………………………….J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 8, 2010
7