MADANSINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Madansingh, who has been convicted of an offence under Section 353, I. P. C. and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, by the Sessions Judge Jaipur city.

(2.) It is alleged by the prosecution that Mt. Sohni, daughter of Ramchandra, was for some time in the employment of Madansingh, who was a peon in the Customs Department posted at Niwaria. A few days before the occurrence Sohni left the service of the accused, though she used to visit occasionally his house. On or about 19-10-1948, it is said, the accused came to Devpura in a motor truck from Jaipur and in the evening the same day he went to Niwaria and brought Mt. Sohni with him. He then left Sohni on the roadside and, came to Devpura and again returned to the place where he had left Sohni and he got into the motor truck along with Sohni and took her to Jaipur. Sohni was left by the accused at the house of one Chitar from which place the police recovered her a few days' later. The father of Sohni lodged a complaint at the police station Panwar on 21-10-1948 and the police recovered the girl on 30-10-1948 from the house of Chitar and got her medically examined by Dr. Bhatnagar as to her age. The case was challaned under Section 366, I. P. C. against the accused but subsequently the charge was altered from Section 3S6 to Section 363, I. P. C. The Sessions Judge, Jaipur, after holding the trial held that the accused had taken Mt. Sohni out of the guardianship of her father and. that Sohni was a minor girl of the age of below 16 years. The accused was, therefore, convicted under Section 363, I. P. C.

(3.) The case of the accused was that the mother of the girl had requested him to take the girl to Jaipur some day for site seeing, and the girl herself told him that she had obtained the consent of her father for going to Jaipur. The accused with the permission of the mother and the father brought Sohni to Jaipur and that he had not kidnapped her from the guardianship of her lather. On behalf of the defence the fact of the minority of Mt. Sohni was also disputed.