LAWS(GJH)-1976-10-9

HARIBHAI KESHAVLAL GAJJAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On October 13, 1976
HARIBHAI KESHAVLAL GAJJAR Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by Additional City Sessions Judge Ahme- dabad in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1976 convicting original accused No. 1 who is the appellant before us in Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 1976 of the offence of kidnaping punishable under sec. 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R. I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default to suffer one years R-I and also convicting original accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are the appellants before us in Cri- minal Appeal No. 534 of 1976 of the offence punishable under sec. 366A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 0 in default of which to further undergo R.I. for six months.

(2.) SO far as the appeal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 is concerned Mr. D. K. Shah learned Advocate appearing on behalf of them very fairly put his case on the footing that assuming that what the prosecutrix Usha has said in and his parents place at village Chikhodra and his in-laws place at village Salpura and also her stay with accused No. 1 at the place of accused No. 2 at Ahmedabad in the second instance and thereafter at village Mokhadta at the in-laws place of accused No. 2 to be true even then the offence punishable under sec. 366A of the Indian Penal Code for which they have been convicted is not established inasmuch as on the own say- ing of prosecutrix there was no overtact so as to constitute inducement within meaning of sec. 366A. In submission of Mr. Shah on the own showing of Usha it was at the instance of accused No. 1 that she was required to go with accused Nos. 2 and 3 and they did not in any way induce her to accompany them to go to different places. We must admit that on the face of it the contention appears to be attractive. But on the close scrutiny we find that the meaning which Mr. Shah wants to ascribe to the term inducement does not appear to be well founded. The Dictio- nary meaning of word inducement is to lead into a situation. For any reason if a victim is led into a situation by a person by his overt act or a representation or innocuous conduct which may be merely in nature of accompaniment it would in our opinion constitute inducement so as to be within the terms of sec. 366A- The learned advocate for accused Nos. 2 and 3 invited our attention to a decision of Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in KESUR MAL AND OTHERS V. EMPEROR A.I.R. 1932 LAHORE 555 where seven persons were placed before a First Class Magistrate to take their trial under secs. 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge under sec. 366 was not established and the Magistrate altered the charge under sec. 366 to one under sec 366A of the Indian Penal Code. One of the accused persons viz. Mt. Barakat Bibi was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment while the remaining five accused were sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. Accused Khushi was found absconding. The case against Mt. Barakat Bibi was that Mt. Saidan who was sitting in . third class passenger-shed at Waxirabad railway station met her and another accused Kesra. They induced her to go with them offering her to take her to her destination and their object was to sell her to some one for a money consideration for purposes of illicit intercourse. As regards the other five accused the abducted person Mt. Saidans say was that they took her from one place to another with the object of selling her at a suitable place. In that set up of the facts the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court observed-