JUGAL ALIAS NATHU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Banswara, convicting the accused Jugal alias Nathu under section 366 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years for the aforesaid offence.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Kumari Arti, daughter of Ramchandra P.W. 4, aged 14 years, was reading in Government Girls School at Banswara in the session 1975-76. The house of Jugal alias Nathulal is situated near the school where the girl was studying. When Arti used to pass in front of Jugals house, he used to tease her. She made a complaint about Jugals behaviour to her father, who discontinued her studies and consequently Arti did not go to school thereafter. On November 7, 1975, Arti was induced by Narendra to go to the bus stand and from there Jugal accused took her to Ratlam. The police Inspector Harish Chandra Sharma of police station, Ratlam found these in the court compound and get suspicious and took them to the police station. A message was sent to the father of the girl who came from Banswara and lodged a complaint at police station Ratlam about the disappearance of his daughter. Jugal was taken into custody and after the usual investigation a challen in respect of offence under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., was filed against both Narendra and Jugal in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Banswara. Both the accused were committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate to face their trial under section 363 I P.C. in the court of Sessions Judge, Banswara. The learned Sessions Judge, after the trial, acquitted Narendra accused but convicted Jugal of the offence under section 366 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo four Years rigorous imprisonment as mentioned above. Learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that Kumari Arti was a minor and was not more than 16 years of age on the date of the occurrence, namely, on November 7, 1975 and that accused Jugal had taken her away from the lawful custody of her father with an inducement and that she was persuaded to accompany Jugal to Ratlam for the purpose of marriage.

(3.) In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted in the first instance that Kumari Arti was major and was 19 years of age at the time of the occurrence and that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in holding that she was a minor at the relevant time. It was then urged that Kumari Arti had left her fathers house voluntarily and there was no question of enticing her of taking her away, as she went of her own free will and that the offence under section 366 I.P.C. was not made out against the accused-appellant Jugal.