Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 24-04-2018 in case of petitioner name Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
| |

Kidnapping and Assault Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Discharge of Section 366 IPC

The case of Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. revolves around allegations of kidnapping, assault, and molestation, in which the Supreme Court had to determine whether the charge under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping or abduction to compel marriage or illicit intercourse) was applicable. The appellant, Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani, challenged the High Court’s decision that discharged the accused under Sections 363, 366, and 506(ii) of the IPC.

The appellant alleged that the accused had forcibly taken her to his house, physically assaulted her, and made inappropriate advances. The High Court, however, ruled that there was no sufficient evidence to establish the intent of the accused to compel marriage or seduce the victim to illicit intercourse, leading to the discharge of these charges. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling.

Background of the Case

The incident took place on the night of September 6, 2003, during a birthday party attended by the appellant and the accused. The appellant claimed that after the party, the accused offered to drop her off at the dinner venue but instead took her to his home. She alleged that when she refused to get out of the car, he forcibly lifted her and carried her inside his house, placed her on the bed, physically assaulted her, and inappropriately touched her.

A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on September 12, 2003, under Sections 363, 342, 324, 354, 323, and 506 (Part II) of the IPC. The appellant later gave a supplementary statement in February 2004, elaborating on the allegations. The accused sought discharge, arguing that no case under Section 366 IPC was made out.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments (Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani)

The appellant contended that:

  • The accused had forcibly abducted her with the intent to compel her to marry him.
  • The charge under Section 366 IPC should be sustained based on her statements.
  • The High Court erred in relying on technicalities rather than considering the substance of the allegations.

Respondents’ Arguments (Accused & State of Maharashtra)

The respondents argued that:

  • There was no direct evidence to prove that the accused had the intent to marry the appellant or force her into illicit intercourse.
  • The FIR did not mention any such intent, and the supplementary statement was an afterthought.
  • The appellant and the accused were in a prior relationship, and the incident arose from personal misunderstandings.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the ingredients of Section 366 IPC, which requires proof that the accused kidnapped or abducted a woman with the intent to compel her to marry or seduce her into illicit intercourse.

  • The Court noted that mere abduction does not fulfill the criteria for Section 366 IPC.
  • The prosecution failed to establish that the accused had the requisite intent at the time of the incident.
  • The delay in lodging the complaint and inconsistencies in the appellant’s statements weakened the case.

Key Observations by the Court

The Supreme Court ruled:

“Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of Section 366 IPC. It must be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the accused under Section 366 IPC. It ruled:

“Even if it is proved that Respondent No. 2 forcibly took her to his house, the later version that his intention was to marry her or force her into illicit intercourse is clearly an afterthought.”

Conclusion

This case reaffirms the legal principle that allegations under Section 366 IPC require concrete proof of intent. The ruling highlights the necessity of strong evidence when prosecuting offenses involving kidnapping and compulsion for marriage. The Court emphasized that mere physical force or abduction does not automatically attract the application of this provision.


Petitioner Name: Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani.
Respondent Name: State of Maharashtra & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice R.K. Agrawal.
Place Of Incident: Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 24-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kavita Chandrakant L vs State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts