Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Kidnapping and Forced Marriage: Mohammed Yousuff @ Moula & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka (2020) INSC 488 (22 July 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 22 July 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 488
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Surya Kant, J.
Can a person be convicted for kidnapping even if the victim was forced into marriage and not just kidnapped? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, focusing on the interpretation of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court upheld the conviction of the accused for kidnapping a minor with the intention of forcing her into marriage, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove not only the abduction but also the specific intent behind it. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer, and Surya Kant, with Justice N.V. Ramana authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellants, Mohammed Yousuff and another, were tenants of the complainant (PW-7). Mohammed Yousuff (Accused No. 1) expressed his desire to marry the complainant’s daughter (PW-8, the victim). Following this, the appellants were evicted from the house. On July 13, 2002, at 8:00 PM, while the victim was purchasing a notebook at the market, the appellants forcibly took her to Punganur, Chittoor District. There, Accused No. 1 allegedly married the victim in a mosque. The complainant received a call from Accused Nos. 2 and 3 informing him about the kidnapping and the marriage. The complainant then filed a police complaint on the same day. On July 22, 2002, Accused No. 1 was apprehended with the victim, and later, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also arrested. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were those who provided shelter to Accused No. 1 and the victim. The accused were charged under Sections 366, 343, 323, and 506 read with Sections 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 3 months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 6 months under Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and 1 year under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellants appealed to the High Court of Karnataka, which dismissed their appeal on September 11, 2008, affirming the trial court’s decision. The appellants then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which states:

“366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.—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; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.”

The Court noted that Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, addresses offenses against the human body. Section 366 falls within this chapter. While Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, provides for a maximum punishment of seven years for simple kidnapping, Sections 363A to 369 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribe stricter punishments for kidnapping with specific intents, such as begging, murder, ransom, or forcing a woman into marriage or illicit intercourse. The Court clarified that to establish an offense under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution must prove not only the act of kidnapping or abduction but also the specific intention behind it, such as compelling the victim to marry against her will.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The victim was 18 years old at the time of the incident and had willingly accompanied the accused.
• Eye-witnesses did not state that the victim was forced into the rickshaw.
• The marriage was not proven as the nikah certificate was incomplete.
• The appellants relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, (1965) 1 SCR 243, to argue that the victim voluntarily joined the accused.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The victim was a minor at the time of the offense.
• The prosecution had successfully proven that the victim was kidnapped with the intention of forcing her into marriage against her will.
• The victim was forcibly taken and confined by the accused.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants was to rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, (1965) 1 SCR 243, to argue that the victim voluntarily joined the accused. However, the Supreme Court distinguished the facts of the present case from the facts of the case relied upon by the appellants.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution had proven that the victim was kidnapped or abducted with the intention of compelling her to marry against her will, as required under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whether the victim was a minor at the time of the offense.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 664, Supreme Court of India. The Court referred to this case to emphasize that under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution must prove both the fact of abduction and the specific intention behind it.
• S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, (1965) 1 SCR 243, Supreme Court of India. The appellants relied on this case to argue that the victim voluntarily joined the accused. However, the Supreme Court distinguished the facts of the present case from the facts of this case.
• Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court analyzed this section to determine the ingredients of the offense.
• Sections 343, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court also considered these sections in relation to the charges against the accused.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The victim’s age: The Court relied on the school records to determine that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.
• The forceful nature of the abduction: The Court found that the victim was forcibly taken and confined by the accused.
• The intent to compel marriage: The Court emphasized that the prosecution had successfully proven that the accused had the intention to compel the victim to marry against her will.
• The victim’s testimony: The Court found the victim’s testimony to be credible and consistent with the facts of the case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal interpretation. The factual aspects of the case, such as the victim’s age and the forceful nature of the abduction, weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The legal interpretation of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, also played a crucial role in the Court’s reasoning.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered the arguments presented by the appellants but found them to be without merit. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had successfully proven the necessary ingredients of the offenses under Sections 366, 343, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court stated, “In the light of the admitted facts, it could be understood that appellants­accused had intentionally kidnapped PW­8 to perform the marriage.” The Court further noted, “The victim also stated that she was forcibly confined in house of the sister of accused no.1, with legs tied, beyond three days.” The Court concluded, “Thus, it is evident that the ingredients of offences under Sections 343, 323 and 506 of I.P.C are also satisfied.”

There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The three-judge bench unanimously agreed on the decision.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that to establish an offense under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution must prove not only the act of kidnapping or abduction but also the specific intention behind it, such as compelling the victim to marry against her will.
• The Court has emphasized the importance of relying on school records and other reliable evidence to determine the age of the victim in such cases.
• The judgment highlights the seriousness of offenses related to kidnapping and forced marriage, and the Court’s commitment to protecting the rights and safety of women and children.
• This judgment reinforces the legal position that the consent of a minor is not valid in cases of marriage.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of the appellants be cancelled and that they surrender before the concerned trial court within two months to serve out the remaining period of their sentence. The Court also directed the police authorities to take them into custody if they failed to surrender within the specified time.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution must prove both the act of kidnapping or abduction and the specific intention behind it, such as compelling the victim to marry against her will. This judgment clarifies the scope and application of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and reinforces the legal position that the consent of a minor is not valid in cases of marriage. There is no change in the previous position of the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants for kidnapping and forcing a minor into marriage, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the importance of proving the specific intent behind the abduction and relied on the victim’s school records to determine her age. This judgment reinforces the legal framework for protecting women and children from such offenses and provides clarity on the interpretation of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.