The court established that the victim's age and circumstances negate any claim of consent, reinforcing strict liability for sexual crimes against minors under Indian law.

Headnote:
Criminal Conspiracy - Sexual Abuse of Minor - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 363, 365, 366A, 368, 376(2)(g), 372, 392 - The court applied provisions concerning kidnapping, sexual assault, and criminal conspiracy, holding the accused liable for multiple sexual offenses against a minor based on the victim's testimony and corroborative evidence.
Fact of the Case:

A minor girl was kidnapped and subjected to repeated sexual abuse by multiple accused over a period of 41 days. The prosecution claimed that the girl was lured by Raju, kidnapped by Dharmarajan and Usha, and raped by several others. The victim was reported missing, later returned home traumatized, and revealed the events to her parents and police.
Finding of the Court:

The court found sufficient evidence, including the victim's testimony and corroborating witnesses, to convict Dharmarajan and others for various offences including gang rape and kidnapping. The evidence was deemed reliable despite attacks on the victim's character. The court emphasized the need for sensitivity in handling such serious offenses.
Issues: Whether the victim's consent was valid given her age and circumstances, and whether the accused can be convicted for gang rape and other related crimes based on the presented evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: A minor's consent is irrelevant in offenses of sexual abuse, and the court emphasized that situations involving threats and inducements erase the possibility of genuine consent. The collaborative actions of the accused constituted a criminal conspiracy leading to the offenses charged.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the convictions against Dharmarajan and others for multiple offenses related to abduction and sexual assault of a minor.

JUDGMENT

K.T.Sankaran, J.

This Criminal Appeal reveals the sad story of a girl who was aged only sixteen years and four months at the relevant time and who was allegedly subjected to sexual abuse, rape and gang rape by more than forty persons at different places in the State of Kerala and in the State of Tamil Nadu. The name of the victim is withheld and she is described as 'the victim girl' in the judgment. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the appellant (Dharmarajan), accused No.1 (Raju) and accused No.2 (Usha) hatched a criminal conspiracy to kidnap the victim girl from the lawful custody of her guardian and to subject her to sexual abuse and provide her to others for illicit sexual intercourse. In furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the victim girl was kidnapped from the lawful custody on 16.1.1996, confined her secretly at several places in the State of Kerala and in Tamil Nadu and she was subjected to rape and gang rape by several persons by keeping the victim girl under illegal custody. It was also alleged that the appellant robbed her gold and silver ornaments during the period in which she was kept under illegal custody. The prosecution alleged that the victim girl was missing on 16.1.1996 and she came back to her father only on 26.2.1996 and the offences were committed during that period.

2. The victim girl was studying in the IX^th standard at Little Flower Girls High School, a convent school, at Nallathanni, Munnar. Her father was the Postmaster of Munnar Post Office. The victim girl's mother was working as a Nurse in the hospital at Sooryanelli Estate. The father, mother and sister of the victim girl were residing in the quarters allotted to her mother at Sooryanelli Estate. The victim girl was studying for VIII^th standard at Mount Carmal Girls High School, Kottayam during 1994-95. She was staying in the school hostel. Later she discontinued her stay in the hostel and started staying at the house of her uncle Robert at Mundakkayam. While the victim girl was staying with her parents at Sooryanelli Estate, she was attending tuition classes conducted by one Kuttiyamma teacher at Devikulam. The victim girl used to travel along with her father in a bus called “Companion”, which was plying in Sooryanelli-Munnar- Devikulam route. The first accused Raju was working as the checker/conductor in the “Companion” bus. He got acquainted with the victim girl which gradually developed into a love affair. The prosecution alleged that the appellant (Dharmarajan), accused No.1 (Raju) and accused No.2 (Usha) hatched a criminal conspiracy to induce the victim girl to accompany Raju, her lover, and to take the victim girl out of lawful custody. Their idea was to take the victim girl to various places and to compel her for sexual intercourse with many persons.

3. The prosecution alleged that, during the relevant period, the victim girl used to travel in “Companion” bus from Sooryanelli to Devikulam for attending tuition classes. Her father used to travel in that bus from Sooryanelli to Munnar. Fathima, the victim girl's classmate in the tuition class, was her close friend. The victim girl had taken a photo album containing photos of her family members to the tuition class. The album was shown to Fathima as well. Fathima took the album for showing the same to her family members. However, when Fathima brought back the album to be given to the victim girl, she (Fathima) showed that album to her friends while travelling in the “Companion” bus. On seeing the album, accused No.1 (Raju) took that album and promised to Fathima that the album would be given to the victim girl. The album was kept by accused No.1 (Raju). The victim girl later joined Little Flower Girls High School at Nallathanni, Munnar for the next academic year. During that period, accused No.1 (Raju) used to meet her at the premises of the school compound during lunch interval on Fridays and also while travelling with her father from Sooryanelli to Munnar and from Munna

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25083

The court established that the victim's age and circumstances negate any claim of consent, reinforcing strict liability for sexual crimes against minors under Indian law.

Cases Referred (2)