Supreme Court of India
OMKAR PRASAD VERMAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
- Citation
- 2007 INSC 255
- Decided
- 8 March 2007
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The ingredients of Section 376(2)(b) IPC are not satisfied; therefore the appellant is not guilty under that provision.
Summary
The appellant, a government school teacher, was convicted under Section 376B of the Indian Penal Code for having sexual intercourse with a student, on the premise that the student was in his custody as a public servant. The trial court held the student to be a consenting adult and acquitted the teacher of rape, but affirmed conviction under Section 376B. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the statutory ingredients—public servant status, custody, advantage of official position, and location of intercourse—were satisfied. The Court ruled that "custody" implies lawful guardianship and does not automatically apply to all students, and that the intercourse occurred outside the school premises, not within the student’s custody. Accordingly, the Court held that the ingredients of Section 376B were not met and allowed the appeal, discharging the appellant.
Issues considered
- Whether a government school teacher qualifies as a public servant for purposes of Section 376(2)(b) IPC.
- Whether a student attending the school is deemed to be in the teacher's custody under the statute.
- Whether sexual intercourse occurring outside school premises satisfies the location requirement of Section 376(2)(b) IPC.
- Whether the teacher took advantage of his official position in the alleged act.
- Whether consent of an adult student negates the applicability of Section 376(2)(b) IPC.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 375, s. 376, s. 376(2)(b)
Subjects
Section 376(2)(b) IPCpublic servantcustodysexual intercourseconsentgovernment school teacherrapestrict interpretationcriminal law
Judgment
•
A OMKAR PRASAD VERMA t
v.
" /
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
MARCH 8, 2007
B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
Penal Code 1860--Section 376 B---Conviction under---Correctness of-
Allegation that Government school teacher had sexual intercourse with
'
student putting her to fear-Held: Sexual intercourse did not take place
c within precincts of school but outside the school and as such not at a place
where woman was in custody of the public servant-Thus, ingredients of the
section not satisfied and section 376B not attracted.
It is alleged that the appellant-government school teacher had sexual
D intercourse with a student putting her to fear that she would fail in exams.
FIR was lodged. The student became pregnant Appellant took her for abortion.
Trial court held that as the prosecutrix was a consenting party and was found
)-"--·
to be of more than 18 years, teacher was not guilty of offence of rape. However,
since appellant was a government school teacher and prosecutrix being
student, was in his custody, he was held guilty of offence under section
E 376 B, IPC. Aggrieved, appellant filed appeal which was dismissed. Hence
the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. While construing a penal provision, the rule of strict
F interpretation shall be adhered to. Consent of a girl, therefore, although would ...
not take the offence outside the purview of Section 376(2) IPC, but therefor
other ingredients thereof must be found to be existing. [Paras 9 and 10)
[674-E-F)
1.2. It is assumed that the appellant being a teacher of the government
G school was a public servant. But all the students of the school, only thereby,
were not in the custody of the appellant. The expression "custody" implies . ......
guardianship. A custody must be a lawful custody. The same may arise within
the provisions of the statute or actual custody conferred by reason of an order
of a court of law or otherwise. [Para 11) [674-F-G)
H 670
OM KAR PRASAD VERMA 1· STATtOF MADHYA PRADESH IS B SINHA. J J 671
P. Ramanatha Aiyur's Advanced law lexicon, p 1170, referred to . A
.)J
1.3. When these two ingredients arc satisfied, the third ingredient,
therefore, would be as to whether the public servant has taken advantage of
his official position. If a student and a teacher fall in love with each other, the
same would not mean that the teacher has taken undue advantage of his official
position. Even then, there must be an inducement or seduction by a public B
servant so far as the woman in his custody is concerned. Therefore, sexual
·intercourse for the purpose of attracting Section 3768 of IPC must take place
at a place where the woman was in custody. In this case, the prosecutrix
{
) categorically admitted that the same did not take place within the precincts
of the school but outside the school. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence
under Sec. 3768 of IPC are not satisfied in the instant case.
c
!Paras 13, 14 and 1511675-8-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cri.ninal Appeal No. 293 of
2007.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.2006 of the High Court of
Judicature Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. Nos. 2386/
1999.
Pramod Swarup, Amit Singh, Pareena Swarup and Bharat Ram for the
Appellant. E
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.8. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted.
F
2. Appellant is a teacher in a government school. Vimala was a student
.~
• reading in the said school. She alleged that the appellant had sexual intercourse
with her on putting her to fear that she would be failed in her classes. In fact,
she was studying in class VII for three years. A First Information Report was
lodged. She became pregnant. Appellant took her to a hospital at Satna where G
an abortion took place. In the meantime a missing diary was recorded on
. t-
1.02.1997. On 11.02.1997, the prosecutrix he1self came back and gave a statement
before the Investigating Officer. She alleged that at the relevant time she was
only 13 112 years old.
3. The said allegations were not found to be correct in the trial. A H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.
A finding of fact was arrived at by the learned Trial Judge that she was a
consenting party. She was found to be more than 18 years of age. On the
basis of the said findings, it was categorically held that the accused was not
guilty of the offence of commission of rape. The learned Trial Judge, however,
was of the opinion that as the school, in question, was a government school,
B the appellant was a public servant. The prosecutrix was a student, and thus,
in that capacity, was in his custody and in that view of the matter he was
guilty of commission of an offence under Section 3768 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced him to undergo 2 years R.l. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in
default thereof to undergo sentence of 6 months R.l. An appeal preferred by )
the appellant herein has been dismissed by reason of the impugned Judgment
C by the High Court.
4. The short question which arises for consideration is as to whether
in a case of this nature, Section 3768 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted
or not.
D Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code defines rape to mean:-
"Rape. - A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case
hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under
circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:-
First. - Against her will.
E
Secondly. - Without her consent
Thirdly. - With her consent, when her consent has been obtained
by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of
death or of hurt.
F
Fourthly. - With her consent, when the man knows that he is not
her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that
he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully
married.
G Fifthly. - With her consent, when, at the time of giving such
consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the
administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying
or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature ""' ....
and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
H Sixthly. - With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen
OMKAR PRASAD VERMA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [S.B. SINHA,).] 673
years of age." A
5. Section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code provides for sentences for
different nature of the offences falling in the said category. Section 376(2)(b)
provides for sentences against public servant who takes advantage of his
official position and commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public
servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him. Section B
376 (2)(b) reads as under:-
"(2) Whoever -
(a) ***
(b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and
c
commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or
in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or
(c) ***
(d) *** D
(e) ***
(f) ***
(g) ***
E
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also
be liable to fine"
6. The ingredients of the said provision are :
F
(0 the accused must be a public servant;
~
•• (ii) he must take advantage of his official position;
(iii) he must induce or seduce any woman;
(iv) such woman must be in his custody in such capacity or she is G
in the custody of public servant subordinate to him; and
,, + (v) he must have sexual intercourse with her which does not amount
to the offence of rape.
7. The Indian Penal Code was amended by Act 43 of I.983 in terms •
H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 3 S.C.R.
A whereof apart from amending Section 376 itself, various sub-sections were
inserted, viz., Sections 376A to 3760. All the aforementioned newly inserted
provisions were sought to deal with such cases which are not covered by +
Section 376. They have thus, been inserted to meet a situation which was
otherwise not provided for under Section 3 76. A new offence against the
B public servant is created under Sections 376(2)(b), 3768 and 376C of the
Indian Penal Code. Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation and
by any member of the management or staff of a hospital with any woman in
that hospital would be the offences falling under Sections 376A and 3760 of
the Code.
C 8. A distinction must also be made out between an offence of rape as
contained in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code which is punishable under
Section 376 and an offence of sexual intercourse with a woman in the situations
specified in the aforementioned provisions. The distinction is that whereas
under Section 376 (2), there is no consent at all, under Sections 3768, 376C
and 3760, there would be consent on the part of the prosecutrix but such
D consent has been obtained by taking undue advantage of the position as
public servant, Superintendent or Member of the Management. Sections 376A
to 3760, stricto sensu therefore, do not deal with rape as is understood in its
ordinary parlance.
9. While construing a penal provision, the rule of strict interpretation
E shall be adhered to.
I 0. Consent of a girl, therefore, although would not take the offence
outside the purview of Section 376(2), but therefor other ingredients thereof
must be found to be existing.
F 11. We will assume that the appellant being a teacher of the government
school was a public servant. But all the students of the school, only thereby,
were not in the custody of the appellant. The expression "custody" implies
guardianship. A custody must be a lawful custody. The same may arise within
the provisions of the statute or actual custody conferred by reason of an
G order of a court of law or otherwise.
12. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon, page I 170,
"custody" has been defined to mean:
"Care keeping; charge (as parent or guardian having custody of
H children and minors); imprisonment; judicial or penal safe keeping (as
OMKAR PRASAD VERMA 1·. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [S.B SINHA. J.] 675
custody of prisoner); defence from an enemy; preservation (as a fleet A
stationed for the custody of the narrow seas).'
13. When these two ingredients are satisfied, the third ingredient,
therefore, would be as to whether the public servant has taken advantage of
his official position. If a student and a teacher fall in love with each other,
the same would not mean that the teacher has taken undue advantage of his B
official position. Even then, there must be an inducement or seduction by a
,•. public servant so far as the woman in his custody is concerned.
14. Sexual intercourse, therefore, for the purpose of attracting Section
3768 of the Indian Penal Code must take place at a place where the woman
was in custody. In this case, the prosecutrix categorically admitted that the c
same did not take place within the precincts of the school but outside the
school.
15. We, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that the ingredients of the
offence under Sec. 3768 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied in the D
instant case.
16. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed. Appellant is
on bail. He is discharged from the bail bond.
NJ. Appeal allowed .
...
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 376(2)(b) IPC"Sign in to search