SATYAWAN JANARDAN KHANVILKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, for offences under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge acquitted him under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, but found him guilty under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant has challenged this order of conviction and sentence passed against him.

(2.) The facts in so far as the material are these. The prosecutrix, Snehalata, is the daughter of Jagannath of village Mitgavane, Taluka Ratnagiri, District Ratnagiri. Her date of birth is March 6, 1962. It is the case of the prosecution that on March 27, 1978, the appellant who was then residing in Bombay came to the village and kidnapped Snehalata who was a female under the age of 18 years from the lawful guardianship of her father and committed an offence punishable under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The other charge which has not been held proved by the learned Judge is that the appellant abducted her with intent that she will be forced to illicit intercourse, an offence punishable under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. As stated earlier, this latter charge has not been held proved and the appellant has been acquitted of that charge. It is the case of the prosecution that on March 27, 1978, Snehalata left he fathers house to attend a private coaching class at about 7 a.m. and was expected to return back by 9 a.m. She, however, did not return. The father made enquiries and came to know on that very day that she left with the accused for Bombay. Search was made by the father. He wrote letters to his relations in Bombay who informed him that his daughter was staying with the appellant at Bombay. The father, therefore, filed a complaint with the police on April 7, 1978. After investigation, a charge-sheet was lodged by the police against the appellant for the aforesaid two offences.

(3.) At the trial, the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution. She was treated hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. The only evidence on which the prosecution relied was that of her father, Jagannath (P.W. 2) and witness, Haidar Khan (P.W. 3). Evidence was also led by the prosecution to establish her age as being below 18 years. The birth extract proved by the prosecution clearly showed that Snehalata was born on March 6, 1962, and, therefore, had completed 16 years on the date of the incident. The learned Judge relied on the evidence of the father and Haidarkhan and held that it was the appellant who induced Snehalata and took her away to Bombay on March 27,1978. The learned Judge disbelieved the case of the accused that he was not in the village on March 27, 1978, or that he did not induce or take away Snehalata from the village to Bombay. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted him under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.