Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Kidnapping Case: K.H. Balakrishna vs. State of Karnataka (21 March 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 2672

Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a person be convicted of kidnapping and related charges based solely on the victim’s statement, especially when there are inconsistencies and a lack of evidence of force? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of K.H. Balakrishna vs. The State of Karnataka. The Court examined the evidence and circumstances surrounding the alleged kidnapping and subsequent events, ultimately acquitting the accused.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident reported by B.Y. Chinnanna on 29 October 1996, alleging that his niece, Lakshmi, was kidnapped on 24 October 1996. Lakshmi was engaged to marry Sundar, with the engagement ceremony held on 10 June 1996, and the wedding scheduled for 6/7 November 1996. According to the First Information Report (FIR), Lakshmi was going to Kamala Nursing Home around 10:30 a.m. when the appellant, K.H. Balakrishna, along with his followers, allegedly made her unconscious by putting some liquid on her nose and then kidnapped her.

Lakshmi (PW2) stated that she was pulled into a white ambassador car, and a handkerchief with chloroform was put on her nose. She was then taken to a farmhouse near Bellary for three days, then to Sholapur, where she was forcibly married to the appellant at the Venkateshwara temple. She was then taken to Pune for 3-4 days before being brought back to Bangalore. On her return, she was able to alert her brother, who took her home.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Fast Track Court-VI, Bangalore, found K.H. Balakrishna guilty on 26 February 2005, under Sections 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines for each offense. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 20 July 2010, upholding the trial court’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 366, IPC: This section deals with kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage. It states:
  “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 342, IPC: This section defines wrongful confinement. It states:
  “Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
• Section 506, IPC: This section deals with criminal intimidation. It states:
  “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

The prosecution argued that K.H. Balakrishna had kidnapped Lakshmi with the intention of forcing her into marriage. The prosecution relied heavily on Lakshmi’s statement that she was abducted, made unconscious, and then taken to various locations and forcibly married. They contended that her initial statement to her uncle over the phone, where she stated she was forcibly taken, was evidence of the crime.

The defense countered that Lakshmi and K.H. Balakrishna knew each other since 1993, and there was a prior marriage proposal. The defense argued that Lakshmi had willingly eloped with K.H. Balakrishna, and there was no evidence of force or coercion. The defense pointed out that during the 20-23 days she was with K.H. Balakrishna, she was not mistreated, and he allowed her to contact her family. The defense also highlighted the smiling pictures of Lakshmi during the marriage ceremony, suggesting she was not under duress.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellant was guilty of the offences under Sections 366, 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 366, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertaining to kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage.
• Section 342, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertaining to wrongful confinement.
• Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertaining to criminal intimidation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions of both parties and the evidence presented. The court found that the statement of the victim (PW2) was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The court noted that the victim and the accused knew each other since 1993, and there was a prior marriage proposal. The court also noted the absence of evidence that the victim’s mother was hospitalized, casting doubt on the story that she was kidnapped while going to the nursing home.

The court emphasized that during the 20-23 days the victim was with the accused, she was not mistreated. The court also noted that she did not attempt to escape and was allowed to contact her family, which suggested that she was not being held against her will. The court also considered the evidence of the marriage ceremony where she was smiling in the pictures, which indicated that she was not under duress.

The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not support the conviction and acquitted the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by several factors. The inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, the lack of evidence of forced abduction, and the fact that the appellant did not mistreat her during the time they were together played a significant role. The court also considered the prior relationship between the victim and the accused, and the fact that the victim did not attempt to escape or resist the marriage.

The court also noted the smiling photographs of the victim during the marriage ceremony, which indicated that she was not under duress. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was kidnapped for the purpose of marriage.

The Supreme Court considered all these points to come to the conclusion that the accused was not guilty of the offenses.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment emphasizes the importance of consistent and credible evidence in criminal cases.
• It highlights that in kidnapping cases, the prosecution must prove the element of force or coercion beyond reasonable doubt.
• The judgment underscores that prior relationships and the conduct of the parties involved are relevant factors in determining the guilt of the accused.
• The court’s decision serves as a reminder that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused if the evidence is insufficient.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, acquitting the appellant. The bail bonds were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of alleged kidnapping, the prosecution must provide concrete evidence of force or coercion. The mere statement of the victim is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, especially when there are inconsistencies and the conduct of the victim does not support the claim of forced abduction. This judgment clarifies that the courts must consider all aspects of the evidence, including prior relationships, the conduct of the parties, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted K.H. Balakrishna, overturning the convictions by the trial court and the High Court. The court found the evidence presented by the prosecution insufficient to prove the charges of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation. The judgment underscores the importance of consistent and credible evidence in criminal cases and the need to prove force or coercion in kidnapping cases.