SHAILESH MADHUBHAI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges the order of the Sessions Judge. Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.513/83. By this judgment the appellant was convicted under Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act 1948 for seducing and /or indulging in immoral behavior with a girl Usha under the age of 18 years and convicted and sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine two months R. I. Though the appellant was originally charge-sheeted under Sec. 376 of IPC, he was acquitted of the said offence.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution one Shantabai Mohan Rathod, P. W. no. 1, was residing at room no. 3 in Gurav Chawl. Pipe line, Asalpha Village, Ghatkopar, Bombay for the last 30 years along with her husband. Her husband died some time back. She had four children, three sons and one daughter. If chronologically stated they are, Suresh, Balu, Usha and Kishore. At the time of the incident, according to the prosecution Suresh of at the age of 20 years and Balu was of 18 years and Usha was aged 15 years and Kishore was of 12 years. Shantabai was working as a domestic servant in the house of one Parekh family. Suresh was also used to help her in domestic work in the said house. Balu was serving in some factory at Bombay.

(3.) I am not supposed to examine the legality or otherwise of this conclusion arrived at by the lower court as there is no appeal filed by the State against this finding by the court below. Therefore my next attempt in this case is whether the lower court was justified in coming to the conclusion that she is a minor normally under the age of 18 years so as to attract sec. 57 of the Bombay children Act. The lower court has found that she is 16 years and three months on the date of 26-11-1982 and therefore she was minor under the age of 18 years and even though the accused cannot be found to be guilty for the offence under sec. 376 IPC the lower court has found him guilty for the abduction of a minor girl under sec. 57 of Bombay children Act. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason to upset this finding of the court below.