RAMJILAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Ramjilal and Mohanlal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, convicting and sentencing them under Sections 366 and 366-B, Penal Code, to 8 years' rigorous imprisonment under each count. The sentences were made to run concurrently.

(2.) According to the prosecution version, p. w. 1 Sardar Singh a refugee from the Western Punjab was residing at Hardwar in May 1949. His wife was dead and he had an aged mother and two minor girls, Gyan Kanwar and Mahendra Kanwar, aged 12 and 11 years respectively. It appears that, both these girls were in the habit of preparing floru balls for the fish and offering them for sale at the Har-ki-pedi. On 27-5-1949, accompanied by their grandmother, they had gone there for this purpose, while their father Sardarsingh had gone to the forest to fetch fuel. At about 12 noon, they were returning alone to their residence while their grandmother had stayed behind at the Har-ki-pedi. Ramjilal accused had met them before and given them food and was, therefore, already known to them. He was accompanied by his wife and two children and met them when they were returning from Har-ki-pedi and asked them to accompany him to Jwalapur where they will be taken to the Rani of Jaipur who will give them utensils. Possibly he knew, they were in trouble for lack of cooking utensils and therefore this was a sufficient inducement for them to accompany him. He engaged a 'Tonga' for the purpose and Ramjilal, his wife and children and the two girls took their seats in it. At Jwalapur, the accused seated the girls below a mango tree, and without being taken to the Rani of Jaipur, they were told that they will be taken to their father and mother. From there, they were seated in a railway train and brought to Lakhsar. There also they were told that they were being taken to their father and mother. From Lakhsar, they were brought to Delhi and finally to Basundra where both Ramjilal and Mohanlal were employed in some mill. Before coming to Basundra, something was mixed by Ramjilal in the food given to the girls and this made them lose their senses. At Basundra, Mohanlal was introduced and the girls were instructed both by Ramjilal and Mohanlal to call Mohanlal their father and Ramjilal their uncle and his wife their aunt. They remained at Basundra for 4 months and were made to do a number of things forcibly. For instance, they were made to change their clothes at the point of knife and directed to wear Dhoti and jumper instead of shirts and Salwars. They were also forced by constant beating to pick up the Hindustani language and speak it instead of the Punjabi language which was their mother tongue. They were kept confined in a house and were not allowed to go out. Then, it is alleged, some one came along and said that since they had picked up the language, they might be taken to Jaipur. Ramjilal, his wife and Mohanlal then brought them to Jaipur and here they were kept confined for three months in a house which was locked up from outside. During this period, both Ramjilal and his wife directed them to state their caste as "Agarwal" and "Gotra,"' as Mangal. The person who had seen them at Basundra, saw them again and said to the accused that it will be possible to sell the girls for Rs. 10,000. This, however, did not come off as soon after the police laid a trap for the purpose of arresting the accused. P.W. & Dalchand, Sub-inspector Police deputed P.W. 5 Dhannaram constable to pose as a bridegroom and P.W. 8 Sundarlal as the latter's uncle. Currency notes of the value of Rs. 500 initialled by the City Magistrate were given to Dhannaram for payment as advance. On 7-11-1949 at about 5 P.M. a bargain was struck for the disposal of Gyan Kanwar for the sum of Rs. 8000 and after the currency notes of the value of Rs. 800 had been paid, the accused were promptly arrested and the girls were taken in custody. The first information report was lodged the same day and the accused were challaned under Section 368, Penal Code, on 12-12-1949 in the Court of the City Magistrate but were committed to the Sessions Court to take their trial under that section by First Assistant City Magistrate, Jaipur. The learned Sessions Judge amended the charge under Section 366 by substituting 'abduction' for 'kidnapping' and added a fresh charge under Section 366B, Penal Code. The prosecution produced 9 witnesses, out of whom the principal witnesses are the two girls, P.Ws. 2 and 3. The accused Ramjilai denied having committed the offence and stated that he did not bring the girls from Hardwar to Basundra or from Basundra to Jaipur. His version was that they were known to Sardarsingh, the father of the girls, and the latter had followed him some days after his return to Basundra with the object of securing employment there and whenever he went out of Basundra, he used to leave the girls at the house of the accused. This went on for 2 1/2 months when Ramjilal's services at a mill were terminated and he came to Jaipur and Sardarsingh also accompanied him with the girls. A month before his arrest, Sacdarsingh had gone away leaving the girls at his house and it was during this period that he was arrested. Mohanlal also denied having committed the offence and supported the version of the coaccused Ramjilal. They produced two witnesses in defence. The learned Sessions Judge believed P.Ws. 2 and 3, rejected the defence and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the accused has submitted in the first instance that the conviction under Section 366-B, Penal Code, is wholly unjustified inasmuch as it was never the case of the prosecution that the girls had been imported into Jaipur with intent that they may be or knowing it to be likely that they will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. The evidence produced by the prosecution is no doubt confined to the fact that an effort had been made by the accused to compel the girls to marry against their will. The learned Government Advocate concedes the force of this contention and is, therefore, not in a position to support the conviction of both the accused under Section 366 B, Penal Code, which is hereby set aside and both the accused acquitted of this offence.