(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to prefer this Crl.R.C., aggrieved by the Judgment dated 15.06.09 passed in Crl.A.No.330 of 2008 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur as confirming in S.C.No.421 of 2007 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Guntur, dated 29.10.08 the sentence and convicted U/s. 366-A IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs,1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1295 OF 2009

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence of imprisonment passed in S.C.No.421 of 2007 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge- cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Guntur, dated 29.10.08 as confirmed in Crl.A.No.330 of 2008 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur, dated 15.06.09, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.

IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1317 OF 2009

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to post the Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1295 of 2009 in Crl.R.C.No.962 of 2009 under "For Being Mentioned".

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., before this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment dated 15.06.09 made in Crl.A.No.329 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur in confirming the Judgment in S.C.No.421 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Guntur, dated 29.10.08 as illegal and arbitrary.

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 1529 OF 2009

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the execution of sentence passed in Judgment dated 15.06.09 made in Crl.A.No.329 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur in confirming the Judgment in S.C.No.421 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge- cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Guntur, dated 29.10.08, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.)

Common Order:

1. Instant criminal revision cases have been preferred against order of sentence and conviction passed by the trial Court under Section 366-A of IPC, wherein petitioners along with two other accused persons are directed to undergo sentence of imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, simple imprisonment for one month each.

2. Initially four accused persons were tried before learned trial Court, the learned trial Court has recorded order of conviction against all the accused persons. The said order was assailed before the learned Sessions Judge in an appeal (Crl.A.No.329 of 2008).

3. The appellate Court, after hearing the parties, acquitted A2 and A3 but confirmed the conviction against the A1 and A4. Hence, these criminal revision cases

4. Factual Matrix:-

                  All the accused persons are close associates. PW.2 is victim girl and daughter of LW.8. A1 was working as driver of an auto of LW.5. A1 and A4 used to transport atta from godown of LW.5 for the past few years, which is situated besides the sundry shop of PWs.1 and 2. A1 used to visit the shop of PW.1 to purchase cigarettes and developed acquaintance with PW.2. He induced PW.2 by stating that he is in love with her. A4 also insisted PW.2 to love A1 informing that A1 is economically sound and he would be a best person of her. Believing deceitful words of A1 and A4, PW.2 fell in love with A1. After coming to know of the same, LW.1 and LW.8 decided to perform the marriage of PW.2 on 10.12.2006 and also perform engagement of PW.2 with another boy of their choice. A1 and A4 pestered PW.2 to marry A1 by eloping with him on 06.12.2006 morning. On 06.12.2006, A1 and A4 came to the shop of PW.2 and insisted her to come to the video shop of LW.3. Thereafter, PW.2 went there, A1 and A4 came there in an auto and took her in the auto to the house of A2 and kept her there. On 08.12.2006 due to fear PW.2 insisted to going home then the accused threatened her with dire consequences. On 09.12.2006 accused persons took PW.2 to Visakhapatnam, there also PW.2 requested to send her back to her parents’ house, the accused threatened PW.2 and pestered her to marry A1. LW.4 came to know about the occurrence and tried to get A3 and A4 but left the place, as such, he took PW.2 to the relative house and informed the same to LW.1 and LW.8 and brought PW.2 to her home. Matter was reported to the police. On the basis of written complaint, police conducted investigation, after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against all accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 366-A, 342, 506 read with 34 IPC.

5. During the trial, prosecution has produced 9 witnesses, (PW.1 to PW.9) and also produced 12 documents (marked as Ex.P1 to P12).

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned appellate Court is irregular and illegal. There is delay of two days in lodging the FIR but the prosecution has not given any explanation to that effect. The evidence of PW.2 (victim girl) had herself left her parents house there are no scope of instigation. There is exaggeration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Thus, there is a reasonable doubt. A4 never induced PW.2 to marry A1. The love relation between A1 and PW.2 is well founded on the evidence of the record. Thus, the offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC is not at all maintainable. PW.2 herself never wanted to marry the person choiced by her parents, she always intended to marry A1, for that reason, she herself left the house of her parents. It is further contention of the petitioners that the learned trial Court has not gone through the ingredients of Section 366-A IPC. The offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC is not at all made out in this case. Thus the conviction is bad in law.

7. Judgment/Law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are:

                  i. Billinti Chandrappa and another vs. State of A.P. reported in 2002 SCC Online AP 1435;

                  ii. S.Varadarajan vs. State of Madras in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 1963;

                  iii. Sabba @ Sabban Ali vs. State of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.648 of 2013;

                  iv. Shyam and another vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 851;

                  v. Tilku @ Tilak Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 224;

                  vi. Akula Raghuram vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2025) 4 Supreme Court Cases 209;

                  vii. Sat Parkash vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 475;

                  viii. Iqbal vs. State of Kerala reported in (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 724; and

                  ix. Jai Kumar @ Jai Prakash vs. State of Bihar reported in 2017 SCC Online Patna 834.

SUBMISSION OF STATE:-

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the order of conviction recorded by the learned appellate Court against the present petitioners is maintainable. He submits that it has been proved before the learned Courts below. PW.2 (victim girl) was minor at the time of the alleged offence. Whether she had consent to leave her parents house or she had love and affection with A1 is immaterial. He further submits that when the marriage of PW.2 was fixed with another person, at that time A1 and A4 had eloped PW.2, thereby, the prestige of the family of PW.1 has been damaged and hampered heavily. He further submits that the evidence of other prosecution witnesses justifiably proved before the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court that PW.2 was forcibly taken away by A1 and A4. He further submits that the learned appellate Court has carefully scanned the evidences and found that the offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC is not maintainable against A2 and A3, thus, they were acquitted, but in the case of A1 and A4, they are active perpetrators of such offence of eloping minor girl from the lawful custody of her parents. There is no error in the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court. Thus, instant criminal revisions have no merit to entertain.

OBSERVATION OF THIS COURT:-

9. On careful perusal of the prosecution case, it appears that A1 developed acquaintance with PW.2 by going to their shop and expressed his love to her, later victim girl also expressed her love towards A1. While her marriage was fixed with another person, A4 insisted her to marry A1 stating that he has sufficient properties and further A1 is a good man and would fit person for her to marry, on such inducement, A1 and A4 eloped PW.2.

10. Learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court has convicted both the petitioners under Section 366-A IPC.

11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqbal’s case (Supra) has pointed out the ingredients of Section 366-A IPC as follows:

                  “9. The residual question is of applicability of Section 366-A IPC. In order to attract Section 366-A IPC, essential ingredients are (1) that the accused induced a girl; (2) that the person induced was a girl under the age of eighteen years; (3) that the accused has induced her with intent that she may be or knowing that it is likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse; (4) such intercourse must be with a person other than the accused; (5) that the inducement caused the girl to go from any place or to do any act.

                  10. In the instant case, the admitted case of the prosecution is that the girl had left in the company of the accused of her own will and that she was not forced to sexual intercourse with any person other than the accused. The admitted case is that she had sexual intercourse with the accused for which, considering her age, conviction under Section 376 IPC has been maintained. Since the essential ingredient that the intercourse must be with a person other than the accused has not been established, Section 366-A has no application.

12. In Sata Parkash’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the ingredients of offence under Section 366-A IPC as follows:

                  “5. The charge with reference to Section 366-A of the Penal Code needs a closer examination. Section 366-A of the Penal Code is extracted hereunder:

                  “366-A, Procuration of minor girl whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

                  A perusal of the aforesaid section reveals that the inducing of the minor to constitute an offence under Section 366-A should have been with reference to an intent to force or seduce her “… to illicit intercourse with another person…”. In fact, there is no mention of any other person in the sequence of allegations levelled against the appellant.”

13. To justify ingredients of offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC, the definition of Section 366-A IPC is required to set out.

                  “366-A, Procuration of minor girl whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

14. For proper understanding of the introduction of Section 366-A in the Penal Code, the earlier history is required to be note down. Section 366-A was inserted by IPC (Amendment) Act 1923 to give effect to certain Articles of International Conventions for the suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children, signed by different Nations. Relevant Articles of such convention that as follows:

                  Article 1:

                  Whoever, in order to gratify passions of another person, has procured, enticed or lead away even with her consent, a woman or girl under age, for immoral purposes shall be punished notwithstanding that the various acts constituting the offence may be committed in different countries.

                  Article 2 :

                  Whoever, in order to gratify the passions of another persons, as, by fraud, or by means of violence, threats, abuse of authority, or any other methods of compulsion, procured, enticed or lead away a woman or girl over age for immoral purposes, shall also be punished.

15. An offence under Section 366-A is entirely different one from Section 366 of IPC. Offence under Section 366 of IPC is for one of its ingredients of offence of kidnapping, while offence under Section 366-A has not the expression illicit intercourse (in Section 366-A IPC) means sexual intercourse between a man and woman, who are not husband and wife, if a person induces a girl to go from one place to another for the purpose of seduced her for sexual intercourse with him, offence is not one which comes within the purview of Section 366-A IPC.

16. To bring home charge under Section 366-A, the prosecution must prove that the accused intended that the girl would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with some other than himself or that the accused knew that it was likely that she would be so forced. The existence of this specific intention or knowledge is most important element in the constitution of the offence under Section 366-A IPC.

17. In my view, to constitute an offence under Section 366-A IPC requires two things. Induce a girl under age of 18 years to go through another place or to do an act, that to intention or knowledge that such girl will be forced or seduced illicit intercourse with another person than the accused person. The essence of offence under Section 366-A lies in taking away minor girl with intent that she may be forced or knowing that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with any other person than himself.

18. There are three principle ingredients of the offence contemplated by Section 366-A IPC.

                  i) That a minor below age of 18 years is induced by the accused,

                  ii) That she is intend to induce to go from any place to do any act,

                  iii) That she is so induced 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.

19. In this particular case, the petitioners may be entices away PW.2 (minor girl) from the custody of her parents. But the intention of the petitioners to do such act with intent that such girl may forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person is not made out in the instant case.

20. After scanning the evidences on record as well as the observation of the learned trial Court and learned appellate Court, this Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove such intention of the petitioners, being accused, to commit an offence under Section 366-A IPC, intention to do an offence is primary ingredient to constitute an offence, in this case, as the intention of the petitioners, being accused has not been proved properly. The order of conviction against the present petitioners under Section 366-A IPC appears to me illegal and not tenable. According to the discussion, the order of conviction against the petitioners is hereby set aside.

21. Consequent thereto, the petitioners are hereby acquitted from this case.

22. The sureties standing in favour of the petitioners are also released.

23. On the above observation, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed.

                  There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.