Sharma, J.—These are two appeals, one by Damodar and the other by Sheonath accused, against their conviction under sec. 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Damodar has been sentenced to five years and Sheonath to four years rigorous imprisonment.

2. The case for the prosecution was that on or about the 18th of July, 1950, Damodar accused kidnapped Mst. Bachi, a girl about 10 years old, on the allurement that if she accompanied the accused to his village, she would be given laddoos and puris to eat. Bachi often visited the house of the accused Damodar for playing with Mst. Munni, Damodars daughter. At first Damodar kept Mst. Bachi confined in his house at Jaipur for two or three days, and thereafter he took Bachi and his daughter Munni to Chandera, and offered her in marriage at first to Balu and then to Todia at village Chandera, provided they paid him a substantial amount of money, but both refused. Sheonath accused was also called to Chandera. An attempt was made to give the girl Bachi in marriage to Ganga Sahai, brother of Mangilal of village Kankroli, but Mangilal, with whom the accused had talk, said that he would first satisfy himself about the parentage of the girl, and would then reply. Rs. 200/-, however, were taken from him in advance for expenses to be set off against any sum that might be settled for the marriage of Bachi with Ganga Sahai ultimately. Ultimately, however, Mangilal also refused to have Mst. Bachi in marriage for his brother Ganga Sahai. Rs. 200/-were, therefore, returned by Damodar to Balu, and a receipt was obtained, and the two girls, who were in the possession of Balu, were taken over by Damodar accused, and a receipt therefor was delivered to Balu.

3. Chhotey Lal, the father of Mst. Bachi, lodged a report about 20 days after the alleged occurrence at the police station Ramganj, and Mst. Bachi was recovered by the police on the 7th of September, 1950. Both the accused were challaned in the Court of the City Magistrate, Jaipur, and the Assistant City Magistrate, Jaipur City, to whose Court the case was later on transferred, committed both of them to take their trial under sec. 366 I.P.C. before the Court of Sessions, Jaipur City.

4. Both the accused denied the charge. Damodar stated that the case had been brought against him falsely, because one Bhonria had taken away his daughter Munni to village Chandera under a pretence that he was taking her for participation in some Nukta, but later on negotiated for the marriage of Mst. Munni. Bhonria absconded, and when the accused (Damodar) went to Chandera in search of his daughter, he found her in possession of Balu.

5. The learned Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty of kidnapping Mst. Bachi with intent that she might be compelled to marry against her will, and consequently convicted them under sec. 366 I.P.C., and sentenced them as noted above. Both the accused have filed two separate appeals, but they are being disposed of by a single judgment.

6. It has been argued on behalf of Sheonath accused that there is nothing to show that Sheonath kidnapped Mst. Bachi. Even supposing that the girl was kidnapped, kidnapping is not a continuing offence, and Sheonath could not be convicted of kidnapping, even if he joined Damodar later on.

7. On a consideration of the evidence on record, we are of opinion that it is not at all proved that Sheonath kidnapped the girl from Jaipur where she was living under the protection of her guardian Chhotey Lal It is said that he joined Damodar at Chandera, where he was called by the later. Kidnapping is not, however, a continuing offence, and Sheonath could not be convicted for kidnapping the girl from Jaipur, even if he joined Damodar after the girl had been kidnapped. Sheonaths conviction cannot, therefore, be maintained, and he is entitled to acquittal.

8. As regards Damodar, it has been argued by his learned counsel that the evidence for the prosecution was unreliable. Mst. Bachi had stated that after having been taken to Chande

Click Here to Read the rest of this document