REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 653 OF 2007

Manjappa                                        .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Karnataka              .... Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2008

Vijay M.S. Balakrishna Madiwalar      .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Karnataka              .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)  These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  judgment  and  

final  order  dated  06.02.2006  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal Nos. 624  and 616  

of 1999 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals filed by  

the State of Karnataka - respondent herein and convicted the  

1

appellants herein for the offences punishable under Sections  

366A,  372,  373  read  with  Section  34  I.P.C.  and  sentenced  

them to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years with  

a  fine  of  Rs.50,000/-  each,  in  default,  to  undergo  simple  

imprisonment for two years.

2) The case of the prosecution is as under:

(a)   On  03.04.1997,  Hanumanthappa,  father  of  the  victim,  

lodged a complaint alleging that his daughter Shilpa, aged 13  

years, was kidnapped by the appellants herein on 24.01.1997  

at about 11.00 a.m. from his house and they had taken her to  

Bombay  with  an  intention  to  force  her  to  have  illicit  

intercourse and thereafter, had sold the victim to Shanta (A-1)  

at Bombay for Rs.5000/- for the purpose of prostitution and  

for immoral purposes.  On the strength of the said complaint,  

Kumarapatnam Police  registered  a  case  in  Crime No.  41 of  

1997 and started investigation.  On 24.04.1997, on receiving  

information  about  the  victim,  the  Investigation  Officer  had  

gone  to  Bombay  along  with  the  panch  witnesses  and  the  

complainant, traced out the girl and the appellants herein and  

returned to Kumarapatnam Police Station on 27.04.1997.  On  

2

the same day, the statement of the victim Shilpa was recorded  

and she was sent to the C.G. Hospital Davanagere for medical  

examination.  The appellants herein and Shanta were arrested  

on 27.04.1997 and charged for the commission of the offences  

punishable under Sections 366A, 372, 373 read with 34 I.P.C.  

(b)  The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its  

case  and  marked  several  documents.   By  order  dated  

03.02.1999,  the Sessions Judge convicted Shanta (A-1)  and  

Vijay  M.S.Balakrishna  Madiwalar  (A-2)  (appellant  in  Crl.  A.  

No.735/2008)  for  the  offences  punishable  under  Sections  

366A,  372,  373  read  with  section  34  I.P.C.  and  acquitted  

Manjappa (A-3) (appellant in Crl.A. 653/07).  Against the said  

order, the State preferred an appeal against the acquittal of A-

3 and another for enhancement of the sentence of A-1 and A-2  

before  the  High  Court.   The  High  Court,  vide  its  judgment  

dated  06.02.2006,  allowed  both  the  appeals  of  the  State  

confirmed the conviction of  A-1 and A-2 and enhanced the  

sentence of imprisonment for a period of seven years with a  

fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default, S.I. for two years and set  

aside the acquittal of A-3 and convicted him for the offences  

3

punishable under Sections 366A, 372, 373 read with Section  

34  IPC and  sentenced  him  to  undergo  imprisonment  for  a  

period of seven years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default S.I.  

for two years.  Challenging the impugned judgment of the High  

Court, A-3 filed Crl.A. No. 653 of 2007 and A-2 filed Crl.A. No.  

735 of 2008 before this Court.

3)   Heard  Mr.  Shankar  Divate,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellants  and Ms.  Anitha  Shenoy,  learned  counsel  for  the  

State of Karnataka.

4) Among the three accused, Manjappa (A-3) and Vijay M.S.  

Balakrishna Madiwalar (A-2) are before us. As already noticed,  

the appellants, along with one Shanta (A-1) were charged for  

committing  offences  punishable  under  Sections  366A,  372,  

373  read  with  34  IPC.   Since  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellants argued only for reduction of sentence, let us first  

understand the offences and the sentence, as fixed in the IPC.  

Section 366A relates to procuration of minor girl.  As per the  

section, whoever induces any minor girl under the age of 18  

years to go from any place or to do any act, forces or seduces  

to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable  

4

with  imprisonment  up  to  10  years  and  also  liable  to  fine.  

Section  372  speaks  of  selling  minor  for  purposes  of  

prostitution.  Here again, whoever involves in disposal of any  

person  under  the  age  of  18  years  for  the  purpose  of  

prostitution  or  illicit  intercourse  or  for  any  unlawful  and  

immoral purpose shall be punished with imprisonment up to  

10 years and also liable to fine.   Section 373 speaks about  

buying minor for purposes of prostitution.  This section also  

makes it clear that whoever buys or obtains possession of any  

person under the age of 18 years with an intention to employ  

or use such person for  the purpose of  prostitution or illicit  

intercourse or for any unlawful or immoral purpose is liable to  

be punished up to 10 years and also liable to fine.  All the  

three sections make it clear that if the victim is under the age  

of  18  years  and  whoever  uses,  procures,  employs,  buys  or  

hires such person for prostitution or for illicit intercourse with  

any  person  or  for  any  immoral  purpose  are  liable  to  be  

punished.  The maximum sentence prescribed is 10 years and  

also liable to fine.   

5

5)   In  order  to  establish  the  prosecution  case,  apart  from  

examining  PW-1,  father  of  the  victim,  PWs-3  and  4  who  

accompanied  the  policemen  to  Bombay,  victim  herself  was  

examined as PW-2.  In her evidence, she informed that at the  

time of occurrence in 1997 she was studying in 6th standard  

and her date of birth is 31.07.1985.  She also narrated how  

these accused persons took her to Bombay on the assurance  

that they would get a job for her.  She also explained that after  

reaching Bombay, A-2 and A-3 had sold her for a sum of Rs.  

5,000/-.  She informed the Court that A-1 used to purchase  

girls  and engage them for  immoral  purposes.   She asserted  

that A-1 used to engage her daily for prostitution against her  

wish.  Medical Report dated 28.08.1997 (Annexure P-2) clearly  

shows that she is below 18 years of age.  From her date of  

birth, it can easily be presumed that at the time of occurrence  

i.e. in 1997, she was below 18 years.  Her father, PW-1, also  

explained  how his  daughter  was  taken to  Bombay  and the  

agony undergone by her.  PWs 3 and 4, both accompanied the  

policemen  to  Bombay  were  examined  as  panch  witnesses.  

Considering  the  prosecution  witnesses,  particularly,  PW-2,  

6

whose statement and assertion are acceptable, the High Court  

rightly confirmed the conviction and enhanced the sentence to  

7  years  with a fine  of  Rs.  50,000/-  each.   Though learned  

counsel for the appellants pleaded for leniency in view of the  

conduct of the accused/appellants in taking a minor girl to a  

far away place, namely, Bombay and sold her for illegal and  

immoral purposes, we feel that it is not a fit case for reduction  

of sentence.  In a case of this nature, it is just and proper that  

a deterrent sentence is to be imposed on the accused.

6) Looking from any angle and considering the fact that the  

victim was below 18 years as on the date of occurrence, the  

sentence of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the  

High Court is quite reasonable and acceptable.  There is no  

valid  ground  for  interference  in  the  quantum  of  sentence.  

Both the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.

...…………………………………J.  (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

....…………………………………J.   (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 8, 2010

7