The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence of active participation by the accused in enticing the minor away from her guardian to establish the offence of kidnapping from the lawful guardianship under S. 361 of the IPC.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is brought from the judgment of the First Addi tional Sessions Judge, Dhanvar in a ease under Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC, wherein sentencing the appellant under S. 363, the learned Sessions judge acquitted him for the offence under S. 376. The prosecution case was, that Shafina Beguam who is decidedly below 18 years is the daughter of Abdul Rehiman and Chandabi and they were living in the town of Dharwar. At about 9 p. m. on 25-3-1974 a boy is stated to have gone to Chandabi in the absence of her husband and he informed her that abdul Rehiman was beaten. Upon getting that news, Chandabi is stated' to have sent Shafina Beguarn to her uncle's place where Abdul Rehiman was supposed to be sitting. Accordingly Shafina Begaum went out and as stated by her the accused Davalsab met her, showed a knife and threatened cria. 407 of 1976 her to accompany him. Thereafter the accused brought Shafina Beguam in a truck and both came to Hubli. After spending the night at Hubli bus land, on the next morning both of them took food at Iqbal Hotel. For the next night they stayed at Ganesha Lodge. From Hubli, the accused brought Shafina Beguam to Dharwar and on 29-3-1974 at about 9 p. m. she was seen behind Milan Hotel by Abdul Rehiman, Chandabi, her nephew ashfaq and a few others. On seeing them the accused carried the girl on his shoulder and he took a jump in a 5 ft deep gutter and thereafter he disappeared. On the next day i. e. on 30-3-1974 Shafina Beguam was found standing near Janatha College by Babusab who in turn informed Mohamed ghouse, Secretary of the Jamaat. Mohamed Ghouse came and brought the girl and took her to the police station.

( 2 ) ON 28-3-1974 a missing report Ext. P4 was instituted by Abdul rehiman. Thereafter on 30-3-1974 another police complaint Ext. P2 was irestituted while the girl was produced at the police station. On the basis of that report the investigation followed. The medical examination of the girl waa conducted and her age was found to be between 13 and 14 years. As a result of investigation, the offences under Ss. 363 and 376 of the Code were Stated to be established and the police charge-sheet was submitted to the Court.

( 3 ) THE prosecution produced 16 witnesses of whom Abdul Rehiman pw1 and Chandabi PW4 were the parents. Shafina Beguam, PW2 was the main witness. Ashfaq, PW5 also stated about the incident near Milan hotel. Vasant, PW6 stated about the stay of the accused at Ganesha lodge. Mahadev, PW7 tailor was produced, as it was contended that the accused gave some clothes to the girl. These clothes MOs 1 and 2 were subsequently recovered. Doctors Yeliappa and K. Rudrappa PWs 9 and 10 proved the medical examination of the girl. Babusab, PW11 and Mohamed ghous, PW12 were produced to speak about the incident near Janatha college. The remaining witnesses included the Investigating Officers as well as other police officials.

( 4 ) THE evidence of the accused was one of denial. It was further stated that there was enmity between the accused and Abdul Rehiman inasmuch as certain dues were payable by the latter. Both of them were quarrelling with each other on that ground. It was therefore stated that the accused is implicated because of that enmity. However, the accused did not produce any defence.

( 5 ) THE learned Sessions Judge did not believe the prosecution evidence in so far as the offence under S. 376 of the Code was concerned. As such the accused was acquitted on that count. However, the learned Sessions judge found that the offence of kidnapping from the lawful guardianship was proved and as such he convicted the accused under S. 363 of the code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused has felt aggrieved by that decision and has preferred the present appeal.

( 6 ) IN order to prove the offence of kidnapping from the lawful guardianship under S. 361 of the Code, it was required of the prosecution to prove that the appellant had tak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document