Manjappa vs State Of Karnataka

Supreme Court8 September 2010Anil R. Dave · P. Sathasivam

SCC(2010) 9 SCC 334
Neutral2010 INSC 583
SCR[2010] 10 SCR 1095

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

1. Where a minor girl under 18 years of age is induced to go to another place on assurances of employment and is thereafter sold for prostitution or illicit intercourse, the offences under Sections 366A, 372, and 373 of the Indian Penal Code are established by the credible testimony of the victim herself corroborated by medical examination confirming her minority at the time of the alleged occurrence. 2. In cases involving the procurement and trafficking of a minor for purposes of prostitution or immoral purposes, a deterrent sentence is appropriate, and the sentence of seven years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000 (with default imprisonment for two years) is reasonable and does not warrant reduction, notwithstanding the counsel's plea for leniency.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

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

1appellants 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

2the 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

3punishable 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

4with 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) 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

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free