GANPAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that accused Ganpat Singh was a teacher in the Secondary School, Merta Road. P. W. 7 Mst. Kamala was studying in Class X Both Ganpat Singh and Mst. Kamla developed infatuation for each other. THE prosecution story is that accused Ganpat Singh made a plan to kidnap Mst Kamla with intent that she might be compelled to marrv him against her will or in order that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. On February 22, 1967, the accused persuaded Mst Kamla to reach the Railway Station. Merta Road, before Jodhpur Jaipur train time. She accordingly went to the Railway Station. THE accused also arrived there along with his luggage, lifted by P. W. 11 Ramjiwan. Accused Ganpat Singh then bought tickets from the booking window. Both of them sat together in one compartment Next day morning they reached Jaipur Station. Soon after they left Jaipur for Kota. In Kota they first stayed in Payal Hotel, in room No. 2, on February 23, 1967, On February 24, !967, they left the above hotel in the evening. In Payal Hotel Ganpat Singh signed his name in the relevant register Ex. P. 8 as M. S. Rathore. THEreafter they shifted to Air Lines Hotel, which was less expensive. THEre they stayed upto 3. 12 p m, on February 26, 1967. In the Hotel's register Ex P. 5 the accused made entry "m. S. Rathore and his wife Mst. Kamla. " THEn the party went to Jaipur. Both the accused and Mst. Kamla lived in Jaipur in Ashoka Hotel upto March 1,1967. Later, they started living in one Arjun Singh's bungalow. On March 12, 1967, Mst. Kamla took out some money from Ganpat Singh's suit-case in his absence. She went to the Railway Station, Jaipur, and returned to her parents' residence at Merta Road. As soon as she reached home during the night, she related the whole story to her mother. Her father was not then present there. When he arrived there the also apprised him of the whole episode. First information report of the happening was made by P. W. 2 Nenuram, father of Mst. Kamla. at the police station, Merta Road, on February 27, 1967. THE police registered a case under sec. 366, I. P. C. and took over investigation. THE accused was arrested in the course of investigation. Certain articles were recovered at his instance from the home of one Bheru Singh, P. W. l. After completing investigation the police presented a challan to the court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Merta. Learned Munsiff Magistrate conducted preliminary inquiry and committed accused Ganpat Singh to the court of Sessions Judge Merta. THE accused pleaded nor guilty to the charge under sec. 366, I. P. C. In support of its case the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. THE accused in his statement, recorded under sec. 342, Cr. P. C. , denied the prosecution allegations. He further stated that he went to Jaipur by the night train of February 22, 1967. Next day morning when he reached Jaipur Station, he saw Mst. Kamla there. He entreated her to go back to her parents. She declined to do so. THEreafter they left for Kota, where he implored her not to accompany him. She, however, did not agree. After sometime they proceeded to Jaipur, where they first lived in Ashoka Hotel and then at Ompal Singh's house. He beseeched her in Jaipur to leave him. But she threatened him with the commission of suicide and insisted to stay with him. Somehow he left her at the Railway Station, Jaipur, for going back to her home at Merta Road. THE accused did not produce any evidence in his defence. THE trial court by its judgment, dated February 20, 1971, concluded that Mst. Kamla was kidnapped in order that she might be seduced to illicit intercourse and convicted accused Ganpat Singh for offence under sec. 366, I. P. G. and sentenced him to 1-1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) DISSATISFIED by the above verdict, the accused has taken this appeal. The following points were raised by learned counsel lor the appellant in the course of his arguments : (1) that the lower court fell into error in holding that Mst. Kamla was minor; (2) that even if the girl was held to be a minor, the prosecution has failed to prove that she was taken away by the accused in accordance with the provisions of and with the object mentioned in sec. 366, I. P. C.