GYANSINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant in this appeal is convicted of the Offence punishable under Section 366 of the Penal Code. He has been sentenced to Seven years' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that on 14.5.1993 Rajesh (PW.1) lodged a complaint in the Police Station Chandannagar Indore, that his cousin Laxmibai, a young girl aged about 17 years daughter of Sushilabai, was missing and could not be found. There upon the police took up investigation and ultimately apprehended appellant and Kesarbai. Police found that apart from these two accused, there were two otheraccused viz. Amartlal and Indrabai, but they could not be arrested as they were absconding. Missing girl returned home on 15.6.1993. Therefore a FIR was registered at Police Station Chandannagar. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against appellant and Kesarbai. They were committed to stand trial for offence punishable under section 366 of the IPC. It is pertinent to point out that at the fag end of trial, accused Kesarbai jumped the bail and absconded, therefore, trial Court pronounced judgment only against appellant. By the impugned judgment dated 6th December, 1996, appellant was found guilty of the charge laid against him, consequently he has been ordered to undergo penal servitude as stated above. Hence he is in appeal before us.

(3.) At hearing, the main contention of learned counsel for appellant is that the ingredients of an offence under Section 366, Penal Code have not been established on the present record. He submitted that at the time of alleged abduction, Laxmibai was major and there is no evidence that appellant offered any inducement or blandishment. She, of her own accord, abandoned her guardianship, therefore it could not be said that appellant took or enticed Laxmibai away out of the keeping of her lawful guardian. It is further contended that the appellant in doing what he did, did not amount to offence punishable under Section 366 of the Penal Code.