Being aggrieved, the appellant/accused preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court on three grounds:-
No previous sanction was accorded by the Prosecution for initiating trial against the appellant/accused under section 188 of Cr.P.C.
No allurement was extended by the appellant/accused and victim had traveled more than 650 KMs on her own.
No offence under Section 370(4) of IPC made out since the age of the victim was definitely beyond 18 years.
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Opinion and Judgment:-
Section 188 of Cr.P.C. gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India, and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be inquired into or tried in India.
“As the facts and circumstances of the case indicate, a part of the offence was definitely committed on the soil of this country and as such going by the normal principles the offence could be looked into and tried by Indian courts. Since the offence was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of the Code and there was no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188.”
It has been established with the assistance of evidence on record that the victim was lured into coming to India.
“It is true that the victim had traveled on her own from Kathmandu to Atariya. However, the evidence on record completely establishes that she was lured into coming to India. The offences alleged against the appellant were thus rightly invoked and fully substantiated.”
The evidence on record successfully establishes that the victim was below 18 years of age.
“the evidence on record is absolutely clear that the age of the victim was below 18 years of age. The medical board had not only done the radiological tests but had also undertaken dental test on the basis of which her age was found to be below 18 years.”

Comments
Post a Comment