IPC Sections 361, 363 Not Applicable If Victim Is Over 18; Delayed Witness Identification Raises Cre

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Venkatesha & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2014), ruled that Sections 361 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could not be applied if the victim was above 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offense. This decision came after the appellants were accused of abducting a woman in 1997. The Court also raised concerns over delays in identifying the accused, which cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

 

Case Background: In February 1997, a college student was allegedly abducted from a bus stand in Karnataka. The police claimed she was forcibly taken to Tamil Nadu and confined, but she was rescued during a search operation. Six of the accused were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping for marriage), but the Karnataka High Court later reduced the charges to Section 363 IPC (kidnapping from lawful guardianship) and reduced their sentences.

 

Key Legal Issues:

 

1. Applicability of Sections 361 and 363 IPC: These sections apply to minors, but the defense argued that the victim was 19 at the time, making these provisions inapplicable.

 

 

2. Credibility of Identification Evidence: The victim identified the accused for the first time during the trial, even though it had been eight years since the incident. The prosecution did not conduct an identification parade, which weakened the reliability of the evidence.

 

 

 

Supreme Court's Observations: The Court ruled that since the victim was over 18, Sections 361 and 363 could not be used. Justice B.R. Gavai pointed out the lack of an identification parade, which undermined the reliability of the victim’s identification. The Court also referred to its earlier judgment in Sarnaia Subba Rao (2018), highlighting that first-time identification during trial raises doubts about the evidence's credibility.

 

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, acquitting the appellants due to insufficient evidence and procedural flaws. It emphasized that the long delay in trial and the lack of a proper identification process made the conviction untenable. The appellants' convictions were quashed, and their bail bonds were discharged.

 

Representation: Senior Advocate Shekhar G. Devasa represented the appellants, with support from advocates Manish Tiwari and Thashmishtha Mothanna. The State of Karnataka was represented by Additional Advocate General Avishkar Singhvi, with advocates V.N. Raghupathy and Vivek Kumar Singh.