DINESHCHANDRA VERMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Dinesh Chandra Verma faced the prosecution under sections 366 and 376 of the Penal Code. The learned Judge, on evaluation of the prosecution evidence tendered, recorded a finding that the sexual intercourse committed by the appellant on Kamlabai (P.W.1) was with her consent and acquitted the appellant of the said charge. There is no appeal against the acquittal of the appellant under section 376 of the Penal Code by the State. The learned Judge, however, found the charge under section 366 of the Penal Code proved against the appellant. The appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. It is against this judgment that the present appeal is preferred.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appcllant submitted that to institute an offence under section 366 of the Penal Code, there has to be either kidnapping or abduction. It was submitted that the prosecutrix being admittedly of 18 years of age, kidnappingT is out of question: The learned counsel contended that according to section 362 of the Penal Code, which defines abduction the prosecution has to prove either of ingredients, namely: (i) compelling by use of force, or (ii) inducing by deceitful means. to go from any place. It was submitted that further requirement in order to bring home the charge under section 366 of the Penal Code is that such use of force or deceitful meansT has to be with intent to force or seduce to illicit intercourse. According to Shri Jam once the trial Court reached the finding of consent on the part of the prosecutrix, the question of illicit intercourse does not arise. Illicit according to Shri Jam, is what is prohibited by law, such as adultery but sexual intercourse do not prohibited by law, between man and woman, would not fall within the meaning of illicit as occurring in section 366 of the Penal Code.

(3.) On merits, the learned counsel contended that there was neither any force or deceitful means muchless, any intention to force or seduce to illicit intercourse has been proved by the prosecution against the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the prosecutrix Kamlabai (P. W. 1), on her own accord, went with the appellant. The conduct of Kamlabai, as revealed in her testimony, completely falsifies the prosecution case the two