HARAKLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application of Haraklal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Paratapgarh, dated Sept. 29, 1973, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 363, I. P. C. and a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200.00 awarded to him by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Paratapgarh (H. Q. at Chittorgarh) vide his judgement dated June 16,1972.

(2.) It appears from the record that Haraklal was a teacher in a school where Mst. Sanehlata was a student. From the evidence of P. W. 30 Mooldas, who was also a teacher in the same school,, it is clear that love affairs were going on between Sanehlata and the accused petitioner. In a meeting presided over by the Head Master of that school, Sanehlata was called before the said witness and she was asked not to pursue accused Haraklal. Whereupon Sanehlata seems to have retorted before all the teachers of that school that she knows well how to take the decision about her future. It is also clear from this evidence that it was a talk of the day in the school that both Sanehlata and the accused were carrying on love affairs and the posters to that effect were also published by the students. This part of the statement of P. W. 30 Mooldas is corroborated from the statement of P. W. 9 Gaurishanker (Head Master) and also from the statement of P. W. 22 Jamnashanker, who was also a teacher in the school,

(3.) It is clear from the evidence of the record that Mst. Sanehlata went with the accused without the consent of her parents and that when returned from Hanumangarh she was taken to her father's house by the relations of the accused and was handed over to her maternal uncle and father at Mavli. The trial court as well as the appellate court came to tile conclusion that Mst. Sanehlata was enticed away by the accused and thus the accused committed an offence under section 363. I P. C. The accused being a teacher had committed sin of grave magnitude and, therefore, he was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200.00, though the prosecution evidence had disclosed that Mst. Sanehlata was after him.