SINDHU KRISHNA THAKUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Sindhu Krishna Thakur of village Nagathana, Satara was along with two other women Nadira Siraj Khache and Jahira Hishamuddin Kazi tried for commission of offences under sections 363, 367, 368 and 370 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant however came to be convicted of only the offence under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code as was disclosed and proved from the evidence led at the trial. She was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further R. I. for four months. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were however acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 368 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) STATED in brief, the prosecution case is that on 5th January, 1989 the appellant accused Sindhu though a resident of Satara went to a considerably far off place Kudal in Sindhudurg district. She was accompanied by two small children. She went to the house of the complainant Sunita Bhagwan Jalavi, who has a daughter by name Manju aged about nine years. Sindhu represented to Sunita that the two kids with her were her own children, that she was on the look out for suitable accommodation, a small room or so for setting up a vegetable stall. Sunita told her that no accommodation was available at her place. Sindhu represented that she needed accommodation somewhere in the vicinity of Sunitas house i. e. in that locality, that she wanted to make a search for such accommodation. She needed somebody to take her around the locality. On that representation Sunita obliged her by asking her daughter Manju as also her neighbour and tenants daughter Anita to accompany Sindhu for that purpose. Sindhu took Anita and Manju along with her accordingly and went away. However, the children had not returned about 11. 00 a. m. which was time for them to go to the school. It was, therefore, that both Sunita and Anitas mother Yashodabai Chaugule started looking for the girls but could not find them. The area of search for the two girls widened. Even then the girls were not found. Striken with apprehension, Sunita and Yashodabai both told the neighbours about appearance of the stranger women and her taking the two children with her. Feeling that the children might have missed their way home, initially a report was lodged at the Kudal Police Station that the children were missing. The search of Sunita however continued and she happened to make inquiries from a auto-rickshaw driver Ravindra Parab as to whether he had seen such and such woman alongwith four children. Ravindra readily informed her that in fact it was his rickshaw that was engaged by one woman with four children accompanying her and that he had taken them upto to the petrol pump on the Kudal Road. Feeling further apprehensive, Sunita returned to the police station to give this much of additional information to the police, her complaint then came to be recorded, the complaint being that the said woman who was unknown and a stranger to her had kidnapped her daughter Manju and her tenants daughter Anita on the pretext that these children would show that woman the way around the village. On this complaint, offence was registered under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code in the first place. Investigation started and search for these two little girls ended at Sangmeshwar Taluka Mahad. Sindhu was found and apprehended there. Manju was found in the house of accused No. 2 and Anita in the house of accused No. 3 Sunita was then called to the Police Station at Mahad where she saw the two girls Manju and Anita as also the accused No. 1 detained in custody. The children were handed over to her custody. The investigation was completed and a charge-sheet was eventually presented against the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 all, the investigation having disclosed that the two children Manju and Anita had been kidnapped by accused No. 1 Sindhu and sold to the accused Nos. 2 and 3 as slaves for employment by them.

(3.) CHARGE was accordingly framed against the accused persons upon commital of the case by the Juidical Magistrate, First Class, Kudal. All the three accused pleaded not guilty and upon completion of trial and taking into consideration the defence disclosed by the accused in their examination under section 313 Cr. P. C. , the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that charge was not at all proved so far as accused Nos. 2 and 3 were concerned. They were, therefore, acquitted. Though, accordingly to the learned Additional sessions Judge, the charge as framed had not come to be proved against accused No. 1 Sindhu, she had not yet been proved by the evidence on record to have committed the offence of kidnapping of Manju and Anita from the lawful guardianship and accordingly convicted under section 363 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced.