TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether previous sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was necessary for trial of the offence; (ii) whether the evidence established that the appellant had lured the victim into coming to India and committed the alleged offences; (iii) whether the victim was below 18 years of age so as to attract Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Issue (i): whether previous sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was necessary for trial of the offence.
Analysis: Section 188 applies where the entirety of an offence is committed outside India and the accused is sought to be tried in India. On the facts, a part of the offence had clearly occurred on Indian soil. In such a situation, the case did not fall within the proviso to Section 188 and no previous sanction of the Central Government was required.
Conclusion: The objection based on want of sanction failed and was rejected.
Issue (ii): whether the evidence established that the appellant had lured the victim into coming to India and committed the alleged offences.
Analysis: The evidence of the prosecutrix and the supporting witnesses showed that the victim was induced to travel from Nepal towards India on false assurances of shopping and a return journey. Her identification of the appellant at the spot, the contemporaneous recovery, and the corroborative testimony established the prosecution version. The fact that she travelled initially on her own did not negate the subsequent inducement and bringing her into India for exploitation.
Conclusion: The finding that the appellant lured the victim and committed the offences was upheld.
Issue (iii): whether the victim was below 18 years of age so as to attract Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis: The medical board relied on radiological and dental examination and assessed the victim's age to be below 18 years. The record supported the conclusion that she was a minor, and therefore the statutory ingredients of Section 370(4) were satisfied. The sentence imposed on that basis was not excessive.
Conclusion: The victim was held to be below 18 years of age and Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was attracted.
Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentences recorded by the High Court were affirmed and the challenge to them failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Previous sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is unnecessary where part of the offence is committed within India, and the finding of minority may rest on medical evidence including radiological and dental assessment when supported by the record.
TaxTMI 
