FULCHAND TEPRIWALLA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged with an offence under Section 366, I.P.C., and was tried by the Sessions Judge, Murshidabad and a jury who unanimously found him guilty and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The charge was that he had kidnapped Saraswati, a girl, with the intent that she might be compelled to marry against her will and that she might be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. It seems reasonably clear from the evidence that the girl was the illegitimate daughter of a man named Ramjiban and the complainant Jasoda and the story of the prosecution was that the accused took her away from Jasoda's guardianship while she was at work and took her by train to Calcutta and lived with her there. The defence was that she had been married to the accused according to the Marwari marriage rites and ceremonies and that it was for this purpose that Ramjiban had brought -her from home to Calcutta. On 30 May 1930, Ramjiban instituted a case against the accused charging him with having kidnapped Saraswati. In those proceedings Ramjiban claimed to be the father and guardian of the girl. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate referred the case to Mr. Himat Singha to make an inquiry. The Magistrate apparently was satisfied that marriage had been arranged between Ramjiban and the accused, but that they had fallen out over the question of payment and for this reason Ramjiban had brought the charge against him. Eventually, a settlement was come to and the charge was dismissed.

(3.) Jasoda appeared as a. witness in that inquiry and stated that Saraswati was a daughter of herself and Ramjiban. The inquiry seems to have been held in August because the Sessions Judge draws the attention of the jury to the fact that as Jasoda gave evidence at that inquiry, she was in a position to know, as early as August 1930, who had taken Saraswati away. That charge was dismissed on 1 September 1930. Immediately thereafter, viz., on 8th September, Jasoda instituted the present case. The evidence to show that the accused took or enticed the girl out of the keeping of her lawful guardian depends solely upon the fact that she was found with him at the local station preparing to embark upon a train to Calcutta. As it seems to be clear that the girl went with him willingly and is now living with him quite happily, it is not unreasonable to assume that she met him willingly and went with him to Calcutta without any attempt on his part to take or entice her away from the house where her mother was living. The evidence about the guardianship of Jasoda is not very satisfactory.