The court reaffirmed that a minor's consent is irrelevant in sexual offences, highlighting that inducement under IPC Section 366A is sufficient for conviction, while conviction under Section 372 requires evidence of sale or disposal, which was lacking.

JUDGMENT

The appellant was the first accused in S.C. No.310 of 2011 and S.C. No.311 of 2011 on the files of the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam. By judgment dated 22.12.2015, the appellant was found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 366A and 372 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC ’). All the remaining accused who faced trial were acquitted. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused, this appeal has been preferred.

2. The prosecution alleged that the first accused had procured the minor victim and after acting as a pimp, introduced the victim for remuneration, to accused 2 to 11 and 16 to 19, all of whom raped her. It was also alleged that the first accused for commission, entrusted the victim to accused 12 to 15, who made her available to other men at the military quarters and lodges. The prosecution had in the final report also alleged that the first accused repeatedly ponced the victim and offered her to satiate the lust of the other accused and thereby committed the offences under sections 366A, 376, 377 and 372 read with section 34 of the IPC apart from sections 5 and 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 . The incident is alleged to have taken place during the period from March to April 2004.

3. Since accused No.12 was committed to the Sessions Court separately, two sessions case numbers allotted initially, as S.C. No.310 of 2011 and S.C. No.311 of 2011, were subsequently clubbed together during trial.

4. The prosecution in an attempt to prove their case, examined PW1 to PW41 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P50, while the defence examined DW1 and marked Ext.D1 to Ext.D47. Ext.C1 and Ext.C2 court exhibits were also marked. After analysing the evidence adduced in the case, the trial court, by the impugned judgment, found the first accused guilty as mentioned earlier and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- for the offence under section 366A IPC . She was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- for the offence under section 372 . Default sentences were also imposed. The remaining accused were acquitted. As there is no challenge against the judgment of acquittal of any of the accused, this appeal is only in respect of the first accused.

5. Sri. Sarath Babu, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no evidence had been adduced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. It was also submitted that even if the prosecution allegations are accepted in toto, still, it would only reveal that the victim had, on her own, gone with the other accused and that the first accused had no role as alleged. The learned counsel further submitted that there was no evidence to prove the age of the victim and hence the prosecution had failed to prove the main ingredient of the alleged offences and therefore the accused ought to have been acquitted.

6. Sri. K.A. Noushad, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the incident as revealed through the prosecution case reflects a horrendous crime and hence no leniency should be shown to the accused. It was also pointed out that the prosecution proved without any doubt that the first accused had enticed the victim and seduced her to indulge in illicit intercourse with several persons including the other accused and since the victim was less than 18 years in age, the off