Avita Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra (2018)
Author: Gulzar Hashmi
India
Published: 03-Oct-2024
Slug:
avita-chandrakant-lakhani-v-state-of-maharashtra-2018
Quick Summary
This case makes one thing crystal clear: Section 366 IPC is not triggered by abduction alone. The prosecution must also prove a specific intent — to compel a woman’s marriage, or that she would likely be seduced to illicit intercourse.
- Court: Supreme Court of India (2-Judge Bench: A.K. Sikri & R.K. Agrawal)
- Core Holding: Mere abduction ≠ Section 366. Intent is the key.
- Result: Charge under Section 366 IPC not maintainable on the given facts.
Issues
- Did the facts disclose the offence under Section 366 IPC?
- Was there proof of intent to compel marriage or likely seduction to illicit intercourse?
Rules
- Section 366 IPC: Kidnapping/abducting/inducing a woman to compel her marriage or knowing it likely she will be forced/seduced to illicit intercourse.
- Abduction: Carrying away by force or deceit is not enough by itself — the accused’s intent is the gravamen.
- Once intent is proved, the offence is complete regardless of success or later consent.
Facts (Timeline)
FIR: Appellant lodged FIR against Respondent No. 2 after a birthday party incident.
Respondent No. 2, formerly in a relationship with the appellant, took her to his home in Cuffe Parade instead of dropping her as promised.
Appellant says she was forcibly lifted from the car and taken inside; later allegations included removing clothes, belt-beating, and inappropriate touching.
Charge-sheet: Sections 363, 342, 324, 354, 323, 506(II) IPC.
Discharge bid: Respondent sought discharge—first against Section 363, later also targeting Section 366.
Procedural journey: ACMM rejection → Sessions revisions (including No. 1261/2006 & App 244/2007) → partial discharge orders → writs → High Court stay & dismissal → appeal before Supreme Court.
Delay noted: Certain molestation allegations surfaced a week after FIR; explanation found weak.
Arguments
Appellant
- Forcibly taken home; assaulted and outraged modesty.
- Acts and surrounding circumstances show intent relevant to Section 366.
- Delay in narration explained by trauma and fear.
Respondent
- Mere abduction (if any) does not satisfy Section 366.
- Later-added allegations lack timely support; intent not made out.
- Seeks discharge from Section 366 (and others earlier allowed).
Judgment
- Holding: Charge under Section 366 IPC not maintainable.
- Reasoning: Record may show forceful taking, but the crucial intent to compel marriage or to seduce to illicit intercourse was not proved; later allegations and delay weakened that claim.
- Direction: Trial (pending long) to be concluded within six months; observations limited to Section 366 only—trial to decide remaining issues on merits.
Ratio Decidendi
Abduction + Specific Intent = Section 366. Without evidence of intent to compel marriage or knowledge of likely seduction to illicit intercourse, Section 366 is not attracted—even if abduction is proved.
Why It Matters
- Prevents automatic escalation of abduction cases to Section 366 without proof of mental element.
- Guides prosecutors on evidence: not just movement by force/deceit, but clear proof of purpose.
- Helps trial courts sift delayed or embellished allegations when assessing intent.
Key Takeaways
Intent is core
Movement ≠ 366
Prove purpose
Delay assessed
Evidence quality
Limited to 366
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “Move + Motive = 366”
- Move: Was there abduction by force/deceit?
- Motive: Is there proof of intent to compel marriage or likely illicit intercourse?
- Match: If both are present, Section 366 fits; if motive missing, it doesn’t.
IRAC Outline
Issue: Whether Section 366 IPC is made out on these facts.
Rule: Section 366 requires abduction plus intent to compel marriage or knowledge of likely seduction to illicit intercourse.
Application: Forceful taking may be shown, but intent evidence is weak; delayed additions reduce reliability.
Conclusion: Section 366 charge does not stand; trial to continue on other counts as per law.
Glossary
- Abduction
- Carrying a person from one place to another by force or deceit.
- Intent (Mens rea)
- Mental element showing purpose to compel marriage or cause likely illicit intercourse.
- Section 366 IPC
- Punishes kidnapping/abducting/inducing a woman for marriage or illicit intercourse.
FAQs
Two things: (1) abduction/inducement, and (2) intent to compel marriage or knowledge that illicit intercourse is likely as a result.
No. The focus is on the accused’s intent at the time of abduction, not on later developments or consent.
Important allegations were added a week after the FIR with an unconvincing explanation for delay; this weakened the inference of specific intent under Section 366.
No. The Supreme Court confined its observations to Section 366. The trial court must decide other charges on their own merits.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now