MANJAPPA & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

                   [2010] 10 S.C.R. 1095


                    MANJAPPA & ANR.                               A
                              v.
                 STATE OF KARNATAKA
          (Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2007 etc.)
                   SEPTEMBER 8, 2010
                                                                  B
        [P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

    Penal Code, 1860:

      ss. 366-A, 372 and 373 rlw s.34 - Kidnapping of a minor     c
girl with an intention to force her to illicit intercourse and
selling her for purpose of prostitution - HELD: In view of the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, High Courl rightly set
aside acquittal of one of the accused, confirmed the conviction
of two, and imposed the sentence of 7 years imprisonment          0
with a fine of Rs. 50, QOOI- upon each of the three accused -
In a case of this nature, it is just and proper to impose a
deterrent sentence - Sentence/sentencing.

     The two appellants (A-3) and (A-2) along with A-1
were prosecuted for committing offences of kidnapping             E
a minor girl with an intention to force her to have illicit
intercourse, and then selling her for purposes of
prostitution. The trial court convicted and sentenced A-1
and A-2 ulss 366A, 372 and 373 read with s.34 IPC. On
the appeals filed by the State for enhancement of                 F
sentences of A-1 and A-2 and challenging acquittal of A-
3, the High Court convicted A-3 also and sentenced him
to imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.
50,0001- and enhanced the sentences of A-1 and A-2 to
seven years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,0001- each.          G
Aggrieved, A-3 and A-2 filed the appeals.

    Dismissing the appeals, the Court

                            1095                                  H
    1096   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A      HELD: 1.1. All the three sections, viz. ss 366-A, 372
  and 373 IPC, 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
B is liable to be punished. The maximum sentence
  prescribed is 10 years and also the fine. In the instant
  case, Medical Report dated 28.8.1997 clearly shows that
  the victim girl was at the time of occurrence below 18
  years of age. [paras 4 and 5) (1099-C-D; G]
c      1.2. The High Court, after appreciating the evidence
  of PW.1, the father of the victim, PWs. 3 and PW.4 who
  accompanied the police party to rescue the girl and PW.2,
  the victim herself, rightly confirmed the conviction and
  enhanced the sentence to 7 years with a fine of Rs.
D 50,000/- each. Though leniency in sentence was pleaded,
  but in view of the conduct of the accused in taking a minor
  girl to a far away place, namely, Bombay, and selling her
  for illegal and immoral purposes, it is not a fit case for
  reduction of sentence. In a case of this nature, it is just
E and proper that a deterrent sentence is to be imposed on
  the accused. 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
F and acceptable. [paras 5- 6) (1099-G-H; 1100-A-D]

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal .
    No. 653 of 2007.

       From the Judgment & Order dated 06.02.2006 of the High
G Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 624
  of 1999.

                             WITH

       Criminal Appeal No. 735 of 2008.
H
    MANJAPPA & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                  1097


    Shankar Divate for the Appellant.                               A

    Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. These appeals are directed                B
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 616of1999 whereby the High Court allowed the
appeals filed by the State of Karnataka - respondent herein and
convicted the appellants herein for the offences punishable         C
under Sections 366A, 372, 373 read with Section 34 1.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.
                                                                    D
     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        E
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            F
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          G
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 341.P.C.
                                                                    H
    1098    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A       (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
B 366A, 372, 373 read with section 34 l.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
c 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
  punishable under Sections 366A, 372, 373 read with Section
0
  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.
E
        3. Heard Mr. Shankar Divate, learned counsel for the
    appellants and Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned counsel for the State
    of Karnataka.

F       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
G 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
H
   MANJAPPA & ANR. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                     1099
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and also liable           A
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           B
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     c
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
                                                                      0
purpose are liable to be punished. The maximum sentence
prescribed is 10 years and also liable to fine.

      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               E
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      F
reaching B~mbay, 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                G
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             H
    1100    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010) 10 S.C.R.


A policemen to Bombay were examined as panch witnesses.
  Considering the prosecution witnesses, particularly, PW-2,
  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
B 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
C 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
D valid ground for interference in the quantum of sentence. Both
  the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.

    R.P.                                       Appeals dismissed.