JAGANNATH BHIKA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed against him under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the accused was working as a peon in the Gram Panchayat Office of Chunchale Gram Panchayat, Taluka Yawal, District Jalgaon. The mother of the prosecutrix , Lilabai (P.W. 1) was also working in the same Gram Panchayat Office as a Gramsevika. Lilabai was residing with the prosecutrix, her husband and four sons just opposite the office of the Gram Panchayat. The relations between the accused and the family of Lilabai were cordial and the accused was on visiting terms with Lilabai. It thus appeared that Lilabai had no reason to distrust the accused at any time prior to the date of the incident, which was the 18th February, 1978. On that day, Lilabai had left her house with her husband for marketing at about 10 hours in the morning, leaving behind the prosecutrix and one of her sons Gautam, who was sick. The accused went to the house of Lilabai at about 1.30 p.m,. and represented to the prosecutrix Sindhubai that her mother had asked him to tell her that her betrothal ceremony was to be performed at Untawad another village about 5 kms. from Chunchale and that the was directed to take her there. The accused thereafter collected Sindhubais clothes and asked her to follow him. Both of them then went to another village Kingaon. The accused told her at Kingaon that her mother had also directed him to take her to Kingaon hospital for treatment. The accused, accordingly, took the prosecutrix to Kingaon dispensary. It was, however, closed and thereafter the accused told her that they should now proceed to Untawad. When they came on the road they found a motor truck standing there. The accused had some talk with the driver of the truck and thereafter he asked Sindhubai to get in the truck. Sindhubai sat in the rear of the truck and the accused sat with the driver in the cabin of the truck. The truck then proceeded. When the truck passed Untawad village. Sindhubai started shouting. Sometime thereafter the truck stopped. The accused came behind, took Sindhubai from the rear and made her sit with him in the front seat. Then the truck again proceeded and stopped at Amalner railways station, where both of them got down. Sindhubai asked the accused as to why she was brought there, but at that time the accused threatened her to keep mum. Sindhubai had Rs. 100/- with her. The accused took away that amount from her and with that money purchased two tickets for Surat. Both of them then boarded the train and went to Udhna, a suburn of Surat. At Udhna they went to the house of one Indubai (P.W. 3), who is the daughter of Gayabai, a resident of Chunchale village, Gayabai was also a member of the Chunchale Panchayat. Both the accused and Sindhubai stayed with Indubai for about 4 to 5 days. Thereafter, Indubais mother Gayabai came there and she informed both the accused and Sindhubai that Lilabai, the mother of Sindhubai had set the police machinery in motion and a warrant was issued against both the accused and Sindhubai. Gayabai also told the accused to take away Sindhubai. Therefore, the accused took Sindhubai and went to take away Sindhubai. Therefore, the accused took Sindhubai and went to the railway station and asked her to sit at the railway station. He then represented to her that he would return within a short time, but he never returned thereafter. Sindhubai was waiting on the platform of the station for about 5/6 hours and was weeping. There she met witness Madhukar Tayade (P.W. 5), who asked her about her whereabouts. On learning that she was from Chunchale where he had his relations, he told her that he was also from a nearby village and his relations came from Chunchale. Sindhubai told Tayade about the entire episode and how she was left thereby the accused and then requested him to take her to Chunchale. Tayade then took Sindhubai to his aunts house at Surat. There Sindhubai stayed for about two days. After Tayade made arrangements for railway fare, he took her to Chaunchale and gave her in the custody of her parents.

(3.) It appears that when Lilabai returned home on the 13th February, 1978, at about 4 or 5 p.m. She found Sindhubai missing. On inquiries with the neighbours, including Phundabai (P.W. 2), she learnt that Sindhubai had left in the company of the accused. She made inquiries at Untawad and found that Sindhubai was not there as well. Hence, on the next morning she went to the Yawal Police Station and gave information about Sindhubais absconcion. However, the police asked her to make search for another two days and then lodge a complaint. Accordingly, Lilabai visited different villages and made search for Sindhubai there. The search having proved futile she then ledged her complaint on 21st February, 1978, which complaint is the First Information Report Exhibit A on record. It appears from the First Information Report that the betrothal of Sindhubai was fixed on 21st February, 1978. On the 15th February, 1978, Gayabai had expresses doubts to her i.e. Lilabais husband whether the betrothal fixed on 21st February would at all come about. At that time Lilabai thought that probably the bridegrooms party was not satisfied with what was being given to them as per the terms of settlement of the marriage and had hoped that she would have to give more to appease them and to bring about the marriage. This information disclosed in the First Information Report was relevant since she had entertained doubt about the complicity of Gayabai in the kidnapping of Sindhubai.