1. Conviction under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC involving a love affair and consensual sexual intercourse between an adolescent and a minor who left home voluntarily. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1086
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
Mahendra Subhashbhai Vankhed - Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat Etc. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1365-1366 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3509-3510 of 2017)
Decided On : 08-08-2017
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Mr. Vikash Singh, Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil, Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Ms. Ishita Singh
For the Respondents: Ms. Tanmaya Agarwal, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Mamta Singh, Ms. Shodhika Sharma
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Mr. Vikash Singh, Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil, Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Ms. Ishita Singh
For the Respondents: Ms. Tanmaya Agarwal, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Mamta Singh, Ms. Shodhika Sharma
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the relationship, the consent of the parties involved, and the timing of the incident in relation to the amendment of the IPC are crucial factors in determining the appropriate sentencing for offenses under the IPC.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sentencing and Punishment
Act Referred
Headnote
Sentencing - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 376 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appeal against the High Court's decision to enhance the sentence of imprisonment for the accused, who was found guilty of offenses under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused and the girl had eloped due to the girl's voluntary departure from her school and engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. The trial court imposed a lesser sentence considering the nature of the relationship between the accused and the girl, while the High Court further enhanced the punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the trial court's imposition of a lesser sentence was justified, considering the consensual nature of the relationship and the voluntary departure of the girl. The Court also noted that the incident occurred before the amendment of the IPC in 2013, and the accused had already undergone a significant portion of the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the appropriate sentencing for the accused under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC, considering the consensual nature of the relationship and the voluntary departure of the girl.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the consensual nature of the relationship, the voluntary departure of the girl, and the fact that the incident occurred before the amendment of the IPC in 2013. The Court also considered the previous judgments in similar cases to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith, as the Court found that the accused had already undergone a sufficient period of imprisonment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends the trial court's lenient sentence was justified by the consensual relationship; State argues for strict sentencing in cases involving the rape of a minor. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. The court found the trial court's reasoning valid, distinguishing cases of forcible rape and threats from consensual adolescent relationships where no force was used. (Para 8 )
4. For consensual adolescent relationships involving minors prior to the 2013 IPC amendment, special reasons may justify imposing a sentence less than seven years. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court's sentence enhancement set aside; appellant ordered to be released forthwith. (Para 9 )
6. When can a sentence less than the statutory minimum be imposed for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC?
A sentence less than seven years may be imposed for special reasons, such as when the offence involves a consensual love affair between adolescents and the victim left home voluntarily without force or threat. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 )
7. How does the court distinguish between cases requiring strict sentencing and those allowing leniency in minor rape cases?
The court distinguishes between cases involving forcible rape and threats, which warrant strict sentencing, and cases involving consensual relationships between adolescents without force or threat, which may justify a lesser sentence. (Para 8 )
8. Does the 2013 amendment to the IPC affect the sentencing of offences committed prior to its enforcement?
Yes, for incidents occurring prior to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which came into force on 03.02.2013, a sentence of less than seven years was imposable for special reasons. (Para 9 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, dated 18.07.2016, in Crim. App. No. 1546 of 2011 and Crim. Rev. App. No. 581 of 2013, wherein the High Court has enhanced the sentence of imprisonment from two years nine months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof, a further period of simple imprisonment of seven days, as convicted by the Trial Court, to an imprisonment of seven years and additional fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter ‘IPC’ for brevity].
3. From the material placed before us, the emergent facts are that the father of the victim (girl) had lodged the complaint on 13.10.2008, complaining that his daughter was missing from her school since 11.10.2008 and the accused is responsible for the same. It is clear from the written note left in her school bag, that the girl had left the school voluntarily due to harassment meted out by her mother. Accused as well as the girl stayed together until 20.10.2008 when they were nabbed finally. Additionally it is borne out of the evidence available on record that the girl had love affair with the accused and indulged herself in consensual sexual intercourse in the intervening period when they had eloped. There is no dispute as to the fact that the accused was nineteen years old and the girl was less than sixteen years old at the time of the incident. Basing on the complaint filed by the father of the girl, police registered an FIR being CR No. 344 of 2008 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 114, 377, 397 and 401 of IPC. Subsequently, 5th Addl. Sessions Judge took cognizance of the case under Section 363, 366, 376 and 114 of IPC.
4. The trial court after a full-fledged trial found the accused guilty for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and ordered to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment of two years and nine months and fine of Rs. 100/-(Rupees one hundred only), failing which, he shall have to undergo further simple imprisonment of seven days. The trial court while imposing lesser sentence reasoned that this case was a love affair involving young adolescents, therefore severe punishment would not be feasible.
5. On an appeal by the complainant as well as the State, High Court further enhanced the punishment of imprisonment to seven years and ordered additional fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default thereof, to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for the reason that there was no adequate or special reason for the trial court to reduce the sentence. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal before us.
6. Ld. Counsel for appellant contends that the trial court, by well considered judgment, has rightly imposed a lower sentence. Further he states that both accused and the girl were adolescents having love affair. Additionally he submits that the girl had voluntarily accompanied the accused and the sexual intercourse was consensual. He relies on the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar , (2008) 12 SCC 33, to submit that this Court under identical circumstances had convicted the accused therein for three years under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC.
7. Per contra Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as complainant (father of girl) while supporting the judgment of the High Court, vehemently opposed this appeal on the ground that the rape of a minor should be dealt with in a strict manner. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Parminder v. State of NCT Delhi , (2014) 2 SCC 592, to contend that there is no adequate and special reasons for imposing lesser sentence under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
8. Having perused the documents available on record, we are of the opinion that the trial court while imposing a lesser sentence has provided valid reasons. Although the complainant pla
