GURJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. has been directed against the order dt. 6. 10. 93 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganager, whereby he held that there was sufficient ground to frame charge against the petitioner for the offences u/ss. 363 and 305 IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY the relvant facts for the disposal of this petition are that on 19. 7. 92, complainant Ramprakash lodged a written report before the S. H. O. , P. S. Kotwali Srigangagar, wherein it was alleged that on the night intervening 16th & 17. 07. 1992, he alongwith his daughter Deepa aged 14 years and son Shyam Sunder were sleeping in the courtyard of his house situated in M. P. Nagar, Bikaner; that on the next day at about 6 A. M. , he did not find his daughter Deepa. He, therefore, made frantic search for her; that he asked his neighbour Sukhdeo Singh, whose nephew petitioner Gurjeet Singh was also found missing. He further alleged that he alongwith Sukhdeo Singh contacted petitioner's friend Bunti Barad, who told them that petitioner was with him on 16. 6. 92 till about 11. 30 p. m. and, thereafter, he went away and that he did not know about his whereabouts. In the report, it was also alleged that the complainant alongwith Sukhdeo Singh and Bunti made a search for Deepa and Gurjeet Singh at Lalgarh Rilway Station & Bus Stand, Bikaner, village Rawla, 36 B. B. , Padampur, Ganganagar & Bhatinda. Thereafter, Shyam Sunder, Bunti & two others were sent to Madras to contact petitioner's another friend Hanuman Singh Rajpurohit, but there too, petitioner and Deepa were not found. Those persons also went to Lucknow on 27. 6. 92 and further searched them in Malot, Abohar etc. , but Deepa and Gurjeet could not be traced. The complainant further mentioned in his report that he wanted to lodge the FIR much earlier because he apprehended that the petitioner had kidnapped and adbucted Deepa, but Sukhdeo Singh assured him that Deepa would be brought back soon and prevailed upon him not to lodge the FIR in order to save the reputation of both families. On 10. 7. 92, Sukhdeo Singh informed him that the petitioner was reported to have visited the house of his 'mausi' in the town of Tibi and that he had already sent Jaswant Singh, Uttam Singh and Munshi Singh there. On the same day at about 4. 15 P. M. , the complainant received a telephonic message of his son-in-law, Vikram Sehgal informing him that Deepa was admitted in the Ganganagar Hospital, where she breathed her last. The complainant, therefore, rushed to Sri Ganganagar, where his son Sanjeev told him that on 10. 7. 92, Deepa had come to his house and her condition was serious and she was vomiting and that she had told him that petitioner Gurjeet Singh had administered her two tablets and that thereafter, she became unconscious and later-on died in the hospital. It appears that the Medical Jurist, Govt, Hospital, Srigangariagar vide his letter dt. 10. 7. 92 informed the S. H. O. , P. S. Kotwali Ganganagar that Kumari Deepa aged 16 years was brought to the outdoor patient Department at 2. 40 P. M. ; that she was declared dead at 3. 05 P. M. on the same day and that it was a case of celphos poisoning. Thereupon, proceedings u/s. 174 Cr. P. C. were initiated. The doctor, who conducted her post mortem did not find any external injury on her body, but found that her membranes, pleurae, both the lungs, liver, spleen & kidneys were congested. However her other visceras were healthy. The doctor preserved her visceras for being sent to the F. S. L. The doctor reserved his opinion about the cause of death till the receipt of the chemical examination report of the visceras. The dead body of Deepa was handed-over to her brother Sanjeev Kumar on 10. 7. 92 and on the same day, her dead body was cremated. The complainant, thereafter, submitted the written report dated 19. 7. 92, whereupon a case u/ss. 302, 364 and 376 IPC was registered.

(3.) I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. The essential ingredients for the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship punishable u/s. 363 IPC, are (1) taking or enticing away a minor or person of an unsound mind (2) such minor, if female, must be under 18 years of age (3) taking or enticing must be out of the keeping of the lawful guardianship of such minor and (4) that such taking or enticing must be without the consent of such guardian. For the offence punishable u/s. 305 IPC, the basic ingredients are that there must be commission of suicide by a person; that the person, who committed suicide should be under 18 years of age or insane or an idiot or intoxicated and that the accused abetted the commission of suicide.