TAJ MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the accused against his conviction under Section 363, I. P. C. , by the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1960. He was also charged under Section 366, I. P. C. f but for want of evidence to substantiate that charge he was acquitted of the same.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the accused was charged for kidnapping Kumari Ivy alias Munni from the guardianship of her father Camelias alias Baboo under the following circumstances. Kumari Ivy (P. W. 1) was a resident of village Chhedka, where she lived with her father Carnelias (P. W. 2 ). He had his cultivation and had his house on One of his fields a couple of furlongs away from the abadi of the village. The girl had her education for some time in a village about a mile from Chhedka but since July 1959 she was taking, her education in a Missions Girls School at Khandwa where she lived with her maternal uncle, Bhaiyalal, in one of the quarters known as Tapal Chawl. In another quarter of, the same building the accused lived. Kumari Ivy had a girl friend Kumari Amboo who also lived in another quarter in the same building where the accused used to visit. It was in the course of these visits of the accused that he became acquainted with Kumari Ivy and their friendship soon developed into intimacy to such an extent that the accused not only gave her small trinkets as presents but also got himself photographed with her. As usual when the school was closed for Divali vacation, Kumari Ivy came to her father's place to spend her vacation. It is suggested that the accused on the mere pretext of searching his brother, who was said to have disappeared from Khandwa, came down to the village Chhedka and reached the house of Carnelias. There he made enquiries about his missing brother. Carnelias without suspecting any foul play in the visit of the accused tried to help him in search of his brother by requesting the Kotwar of the village to take the accused in the village and make further search for his missing brother. It is then said that sometime in the afternoon on that very day the accused returned to the house of Carnelias and after drinking water left the place and proceeded towards the railway station at Sohagpur. It is suggested that during this brief halt the accused and Kumari Ivy decided upon a plan to elope and Kumari Ivy taking advantage of her father being busy in some work, left her house and followed immediately after the accused. She met him at some distance from where they proceeded together and reached Sohagpur railway station. In the mean while Kumari Ivy's disappearance from the house having been detected a search for her was made without success. Then, suspecting that she may have gone with the accused and having learnt from one forest guard, Fundilal (P. W. 3), that he had seen the boy and the girl proceeding towards Sohagpur railway station, which fact having been further confirmed by some cartmen who had also come that way, Carnelias rushed to the railway station and found his daughter, Kumari Ivy, sitting with the accused on a bench on the platform of the station. There was some exchange of hot words which attracted the attention of the station staff and on learning what had actually happened a report was lodged in the police station at Sohagpur and the accused was taken into custody. In the personal search pf the accused among other articles his photographs with Kumari Ivy (Articles B and C) and a letter (Article H) were seized. After investigation the accused was prosecuted and committed to stand his trial as stated in the beginning.

(3.) THE accused denied to have committed the offence levelled against him. He pleaded that he never had any mala fide intentions towards Kumari Ivy, who was always treated by him as his sister. The presents and the photograph were given and taken as a brother would treat his sister. He asserted that his brother was in fact missing and that he had alone gone to the railway station in search of him. He denied to have taken the girl out of the keeping of her father's guardianship. On the contrary it was suggested by him that Kumari Ivy reached the station of her own accord after he had reached the place. He also disputed her age to be below 18 years.