Karnataka HC acquits man of abduction & rape, rules harsher punishment can’t apply retrospectively

The High Court of Karnataka has acquitted a man in an abduction-rape case, noting that retrospective application of harsher punishments breaches constitutional protections under Article 20(1), which prohibits imposing a heavier penalty than prescribed at the time the offence was committed. 

The crime was registered in 2011, two years before the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, which prescribes harsher penal consequences, came into force.  The victim, a II PU student, went missing from home on May 31, 2011, and based on her mother’s complaint, police registered the FIR four days later. On June 9, the victim and the accused were traced to Tamil Nadu and brought to the Bellavi police station, Tumakuru district. 

On June 28, 2014, the trial court sentenced the accused, a native of Kanchipuram, to eight years’ imprisonment and fined him Rs 4,000 under IPC Section 376 (rape) and three years’ imprisonment with a Rs 2,000 fine under IPC Section 366A (abduction). 

Challenging the sentence, the accused argued that the statements of the complainant and the victim were contradictory and did not establish any element of inducement or coercion. He further contended that the girl had voluntarily accompanied him without any threat or force, and therefore the essential ingredients of kidnapping or abduction were not satisfied. 

The accused also argued that the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, cannot be brought into force retrospectively from February 3, 2013, because the alleged offence was committed in May 2011. He pointed out that the alleged offence occurred prior to the amendment and that the girl’s age was over 16. The unamended provisions must govern the case, and the retrospective application of the 2013 Act in this matter is impermissible and violative of constitutional safeguards, he stated. 

He also relied on the binding principles enshrined under Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits the retrospective application of criminal laws that would impose a greater punishment than what was prescribed at the time of the commission of the offence. 

Justice G Basavaraja noted that the prosecution had failed to prove the offences under IPC Sections 366A and 376 beyond reasonable doubt. “The presence of intact hymen, lack of injuries, and the victim’s own admission of consensual relationship critically weaken the prosecution case,” he said. 

After perusing the Supreme Court judgements, the court noted that the principle of non-retrospectivity in criminal law is a fundamental tenet rooted in the maxim ‘Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege’ — no crime or punishment can be imposed without a pre-existing law. 

“Hence, applying the amended provisions retrospectively in this case is impermissible. The maxim ‘Lex prospicit, non respicit’ i.e. ‘the law looks forward, not backward” aptly encapsulates this principle, underscoring that laws must operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. The trial court’s application of the amended law with retrospective effect thus amounts to an infraction of constitutional protections and the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, warranting reversal of the conviction and sentence passed under the amended statute,” the court ruled.