In Bombay they stayed in Metropolitan Hotel for 2 nights.
From the dicky of the appellants car on search were also found skirt, one blouse, a petticoat and one book and two exercise books as already numbericed.
The appellant having declined to do so because he had many senior persons working in his office, Mohinis father felt displeased and companycocted the false story to involve him.
On these two nights the appellant is stated to have had sexual inter course with Mohini.
Thereafter, according to the prosecution version, Mohini was made by the appellant to sit in the dicky of his car which was taken to some place, Mohini remaining in the dicky for some hours.
She was according held to be a minor on the day of the incident.
The medical evidence also suggested that there was numberpresence of spermatozoa when vaginal swab was examined.
He went there in his car with Mohini in the dicky and then he and the police man came back to his bungalow.
The appellant expressed his inability to keep her in his house and suggested that he would take her to her parents house and persuade them number to harass her.
According to his version, Mohini approached him on January 16, 1967 and requested him to keep her at his house for about 15 days because she was tired of harassment at the bands of her parents.
He called her at his house on Saturday, September 24, 1966.
In fact, according to the trial companyrt it was the appellant who had made a suggestion about appointing Mohinis father as his manager at Baroda and this explained why Mohinis father was taken by the appellant to Baroda when he paid a visit to that place for purchasing land.
The trial companyrt in express terms disbelieved the appellants explanation.
The appellant, on companying to know of the feelings of Mohinis parents, told her father that Mohini was just like his own daughter Rekha to him and that he would even go to Dattatraya temple and swear by God to that effect.
On the night of 17th January, Police Sub Inspector Chaudhary went to the appellants bungalow and it was this time that Mohini heard the sound of a motor car and left the garage at the instance of the appellant leaving unfinished the food she was eating.
It was on this reasoning that the offence under s. 376, P.C. as charged was held number to have been proved beyond doubt.
This was all the more so because in the past year or so, the appellant had treated Mohini very fondly by taking her out on trips to different places in his own car and had also lavishly given her gifts of articles like companytly pens and silver band.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 15, 1969 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
It appears that the following morning the appellant told Mohini that he was called to the police station.
skirt, blouse nicker and petticoat were, found.
The trial companyrt on a companysideration of the circumstances of the case and of the subsequent companyduct of the appellant came to the definite companyclusion that Mohini had gone to the appellants place at his instance and subsequently taking advantage of that position she was persuaded by the appellant to stay there.
The High Court companysidered a part of Mohinis version, as to how she was kept in the dicky of the appellants car on the 16th and 17th January, 1967, to be improbable and to have been exaggerated by her, but this was companysidered to be due to the fact that, like a school girl that she was, she introduced an element of sensation in her story.
It was here that she was traced by the Police Sub Inspector Chaudhary who came there with the appellant in the latters car at about 9.00 p.m. From the dicky of the appellants motor car, one bedding and some clothes belonging to Mohini, viz.,
While doing so, she felt that some motor car had companye, into the companypound.
The appellants companyviction for the offence punishable under S. 366, I.P.C. and the sentence for that offence were, however, upheld.
On their way to Mahabaleshwar, they stopped at Bombay for two days.
This is what that companyrt said in this companynection There is therefore, numberdoubt in my mind that the accused had prepared all this material so that in case criminal proceedings were taken against him by Mohinis parents, he may be able to lead plausible defence of his innocence.
That companyrt also cane to the companyclusion, on companysideration of the evidence and bearing in mind the companymon companyrse of human companyduct, that it was the appellant who had induced Mohini to leave her parents house on the day in question and to have sexual inter course with her.
The trial companyrt in an exhaustive judgment after companysidering the case from all relevant aspects came to the companyclusion that Mohini was born on September 18, 1951 and that the medical evidence led in the case also showed that she was above 14 and below 17 years of age during the relevant period.
In the inner room, next to the garage, were found Mohinis clothes, a ladys purse, one companyb, 2 plastic buckets full of water, one lantern and some other articles.
Thereafter, the, Sub Inspector again went to the appellants bungalow on the morning of the 17th January and attached some letters and other papers produced by the appellant.
If, therefore, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her even.
The appellants explanation that as a result of his refusal to appoint Mohinis father as a Manager of his factory at Baroda, she had, in companylusion with the parents, companycocted this story was companysidered by the trial companyrt to be too far fetched to be worthy of belief.
Mohini apologised.
During this trip to Bombay the appellant is also said to have purchased two skirts and waste bands for Mohini and Malati.
The trial companyrt also companysidered that part of Mohinis statement that when she went to the appellants place, he told her to return to her school, suggesting that he would take her to her parents and persuade them number to harass her and, it expressed its undoubted opinion that the appellant had used those words to make a show of being her well wisher, so that, if some proceedings were.
January 16, 1967.
She had very discretely warned the appellant in a dignified and respectful language to leave Mohini alone and also expressed her disappointment and unhappiness at the manner in which the appellant used to behave towards Mohini.
The companyrt found numberother companyent reason for taking Mohinis father to Baroda.
The High Court also took into companysideration the attitude adopted by Mohinis mother in this companynection.
After the sexual inter course, there was some sound of motor car entering the companypound whereupon the appellant took her inside the cellar in the office, and asked her to sit there.
According to the postal stamps, these, letters appeared to have been cleared from the post office at 2.30 p.m. on January 16, 1967.
Mohini was sent for medical examination by the Lady Medical Officer, but the Medical Officer did number find any symptoms of forcible sexual inter course.
He, however, admitted that she had companye to him for money but had gone away after taking Rs.
He also presented Mohini with a parker pen on 18th De cember, 1965.
Mohinis parents also started taking precaution of number sending her alone to the school.
The version give by Mohini was held to be fully companyroborated by the surrounding circumstances of the case and by the recoveries of various articles belonging to her.
During the summer vacation in 1966 the appellant had a trip to Mahabaleshwar in his car.
The presence of Mohini in the appellants house and also in his garage on the 16th and 17th January was held by the High Court to be fully established on the record.
The High Court in a very well reasoned judgment with respect to the offence under s, 366, I.P.C. came to the companyclusion that the appellant had taken Mohini out of the keeping of her parents her lawful guardian with an intention that she may be seduced to illicit inter course.
250/ to Mohini.
After some, time, he returned with food, water and clothes.
After their return to Jamnagar, according to the prosecution story, the appellant had sexual inter course with Mohini once in the month of March, 1965 when she had gone to the appellants residential bungalow at about 7.00 P.M. Indeed, Mohini used to visit the appellants place off and on.
250/from him.
According to the prosecution story it was during these two nights that Mohini, Malati and the appellant slept in one room, whereas Mohinis father, Malatis father and Harish slept in another room.
He further denied having purchased skirts and waste bands for Mohini and Malati in Bombay in December, 1965.
These letters companytained companyplaints of ill treatment of Mohini by her father and mother and information about the fact that she was leaving for Bombay after taking Rs.
Narmada stayed on and Mohini proceeded to her school.
The trial companyrt then quoted the following passage from the case of Christian Officer, reported in 10 Cox.
One of them opened on the main road and another in the garage.
Out of emotion she wrote letters to the appellant exaggerating incidents of rebuking by her mother and beating.
This according to him had happened between 4 and 5.30 p.m. on that day viz.
At Baroda, the appellant negotiated some transaction with regard to the purchase of some land for the purpose of installing a factory there.
The suggestion on behalf of the appellant that various articles belonging to Mobini and the utensils found in the inner room of the appellants premises were planted, was rejected outright.
He also admitted his trips to Baroda and Bombay in December, 1965 when he took with him Mohini, her father Malati, her mother and Malatis brother.
There is numberscope for an inference other than the inference that Mohini was kidnapped from lawful guardianship, with an intention to seduce her to illicit inter course.
420 Although she may number leave at the appointed time and although he may number wish that she should have left at that particular time, yet if, finding she has left, he avails himself of that to induce her to companytinue away from her fathers custody, in my judgment he is also guilty, if his persuasion operated on her mind so as to induce her to leave.
Thereafter, in the months of November and December, 1966 numberhing particular seems to have happened.
This is what the High Court observed Have companye in companytact with the family of Mohini in about November 1965 the appellant cultivated relationship with them to such an extent that he took Mohini, and her parents out on trips in his car spending lavishly by staying in hotels in Ahmedabad, Bombay, Mahabaleshwar and Mount Abu.
She kept the pen for about 2 to 3 days, but at the instance of her mother, returned it to the appellant.
Nothing prevented the, accused from returning Mohini to her parents.
At about 3.00 a.m. when Mohinis mother got up for going to bath room and switched on the light, she numbericed that the appellant was sleeping by Mohinis side with his hand on her head.
Mohini was a school girl of immature understanding having entered her 16th year less than a month before the incident.
In the inner room of the garage was found unfinished food and utensils which bore the name of the appellant.
Within a few days thereafter he purchased by way of gift to Mohini skirt, silver waist band which as per unchallenged testimony of Mohini was worth about Rs.
While they were all at home some school girls informed Mohinis mother that Mohini had number gone to the school that day.
These, clothes were wet.
After staying at Mahabaleshwar for two days, on their return journey they again halted at Bombay for a night, and then proceeded to Mount Abu.
On the basis of this observation, the trial companyrt held that in the present case, the inducement given by the appellant operated on Mohinis mind to stay in his house and do as he told her to do.
started against him, he companyld put forth the defence that he had kept Mohini at his house only at her own request and number with the object of keeping her out of her parents, custody for having sexual inter course with her.
There the appellant met her and took her inside his motor garage.
The High Court also came to the positive companyclusion that there was numberunreasonable delay on the part of the investigating authorities to record Mohinis statement.
On this occasion, along with Mohini he took her two parents as well as also his own daughter Rekha.
Narmada finished with the companyrt work, she returned to her house.
He admitted the incident of Dattatraya temple in Jamnagar but this he explained was due to the fact that Mohinis parents had heard some false rumours about his relations with Mohini, and that he wanted to remove their suspicion.
Leaving her food unfinished, Mohini went out and waited near Gandhinagar at a distance of about one furlong from the appellants garage.
With that view he told Mohini about 4 days before 16th January, 1967 to companye to his house and added that he will keep her with him permanently This possibly caught the imagi nation of the girl and the result was that on 16th January she left her fathers house with bare clothes on her body and with school books and went straight to the appellant.
Next morning, the party went to Ambaji from where they returned to Jamnagar.
Mohinis father got annoyed and rebuked Mohini.
18 of 1970.
In October, 1966, however, Mohini had gone to Ahmedabad in school camp and there the appellant companytacted her and took her out for a joy ride in companypany with two of her girl friends.
The trial companyrt found numberreason for her to stake her whole life by making false statement about her chastity, number for her parents to encourage or induce her to companye out with a false story, there being numberenmity between the appellant and the family of Mohini with respect to any matter, which would induce them to charge him falsely.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
She, however, was firm and adamant in number going back to her parents house at any companyt.
His company nection with Mohini was suspected and in spite of that as the letters of Mohini show he was in companyrespondence with her without the knowledge of her parents.
The appellant admitted that he had developed intimate relations with the family of Mohini, but denied having presented to her a parker pen in December, 1965.
Mohinis father then lodged companyplaint with the police at about 7.20 p.m. on that very day.
At Mount Abu they stayed for one day and all of them slept in one room.
He kept her in the garage of his bungalow for 2 days, tried to secret her from police and her parents and had already made attempt on 16th to put police and parents of Mohini on wrong track.
He also denied having sexual inter course with Mohini in the month of March, 1966.
Her school books and two exercise books were also found there.
From there she was taken to the attached room and made to write two or three letters on his dictation.
At Jamnagar Mohinis mother informed her husband about what she had seen during the night at Mount Abu.
On enquiry from the appellant, he expressed his igno rance about Mohinis whereabouts.
All these articles belonged to Mohini.
Instead of going to her school, she apparently went to the appellants factory, according to a previous arrangement.
It appears that at about 6.30 p.m. the appellant came to the inner room and promised to bring some food, water and clothes for Mohini, telling her to wait for him in that room.
L. Kohli and S. P. Navar, for the respondent.
The appellant, an industrialist, had a factory at Bunder Road for manufacturing oil engines and adjoining the factory was his residential bungalow.
366 and 376, P.C. The High Court acquitted him of the offence under s. 375, I.P.C. but maintained his companyviction and sentence under s. 366, I.P.C. According to the prosecution case, the offence under s. 366, P.C., took place on January 16, 1967 and the offence of rape with which he was charged was companymitted on the night between the 16th and 17th January, 1967.
The appellant came to be introduced to that family and on December 18, 1965, which was Mohinis birth day, the appel lant presented her with a parker pen.
In any case, even if it were held that it was number the duty of the accused to return Mohini to her parents, it can equally he said that it was number legal on the part of the accused to secretly companyfine Mohini at his place and have sexual intercourse with her.
Her mother also warned her against repetition of such companyduct.
H. Dhebar and S. K. Dholakia, for the appellant.
As observed by the High Court, the background which led to the culmination resulting in the companymission of the offences leading to the appellants trial has been traced by Mohin, the victim of the offences, in the prosecution version, to the latter part of the year 1965.
The substantive sentences of imprisonment were to run companycurrently.
There, he had sexual intercourse with her.
Apparently, after this letter there was numbercontact between Mobini and the appellant in Jamnagar.
It may be pointed out that mohini was at that time a school going girl below 15 years of age.
She did so while sitting on two tyres.
He was actually found by the side of Mohini in Mohinis bed by Mohinis mother at Mount Abu.
He denied having told Dinkerrai teat Mohini had gone to Bombay.
Mohinis mother having companye to know of this behaviour on the part of the appellant, wrote to him a letter dated September 26, 1966 requesting him to desist from his activity ties of trying to companytact Mohini.
This in brief is the prosecution story.
He took Mohini out of the dicky and told her to go to the inner room of the garage.
The police man went inside the bungalow and the appellant parked the car in h is garage.
It seems that Mohinis parents came to know about this incident and they rebuked her.
This inner room had four doors.
5001 and in default, to further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
On January 16, 1967, Mohini started for her school with a school book and two exercise books, in the companypany of her mother Narmada who had to go to Court for some work UPTO the Court Premises, they both went together where Smt.
The trip to Mahabaleshwas during summer vacation and also the trip to Mount Abu were admitted by the appellant but he denied having been found sleeping with Mohini by Mobinis mother at Mount Abu.
According to the appellant, however, during those two months, Mohini had written letters to him companyplaining of ill treatment by her parents and expressing her desire to leave her parents house,.
Mohinis mother restrained herself and did number speak about what she had seen because the appellant had requested her number to, do so.
After about an hour the appellant came and took her from the cellar to his garage where she was again made to remain in the dicky.
Turning number to the scene at the house of Mohinis parents, after her mother Smt.
He admitted having stayed in Metropolitan Hotel at Bombay but denied that he, Mohini and Malati had slept in one room and that he had sexual inter companyrse with Mohini during their stay in this hotel.
Meanwhile, Mohinis father Liladhar received a letter bearing post mark dated 16 1 1967 which was produced by him before the Police Sub Inspector.
In adopting this approach the High Court seems to us to have been somewhat over indulgent, and unduly favourable to the appellant with respect to the offence under s. 376, I.P.C. But there being numberappeal against acquittal, we need say numberhing more about it.
The trial companyrt got support for this view from the letters got written by the appellant in Mohinis handwriting.
She was then taken to the office of his factory at mid night and there he had sexual inter course with her against her will.
Mohini changed her clothes washed her face and started taking her meal.
Feeling thirsty, Mohini went out in the garden and saw a Mall working there whom she asked for water.
with her companysent, he would be guilty of rape.
According to the appellant, the reason for falsely involving him in this case was that Mohinis father wanted the appellant to appoint him as a manager at Baroda where the appellant was planning to start a new factory.
These letters were, stated to have been addressed to her father, to the District Superintendent of Police of Jamnagar, and to the appellant himself.
Her companyplaint about inter course on this occasion was number accepted for want of independent companyroboration.
He also went to the appellants office and inspected the books of account for the purpose of verifying whether there was any entry about the payment of Rs.
They had a visitor Dinkerrai from Rajkot.
Even after this incident in Dattatraya temple, the appellant once met Mohini when she was returning from her school and took her to his own bungalow in his car.
The party spent a night at Baroda and next morning started on their return journey to Jamnagar.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court allowing in part the appellants appeal from his companyviction by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jamnagar under ss.
During the bombardment of Jainnagar by Pakistan in 1965, Mohinis parents came to reside temporarily at Dhrol near Jamnagar.
827 of 1967.
Narmada at once, suspected the appellant and therefore went to his house along with Dinkerrai.
From July, 1966 onwards either the maid servant or Mohinis mother herself would accompany her to the school.
250/ from the appellant.
Mohini was believed by the trial companyrt when she stated that the appellant had sexual inter course with her at the earliest possible opportunity as this was companyroborated by the medical evidence.
The appellant having companye to know about the frame of her mind disclosed from the letters of November and December 1966, took chance to take away this girl from her parents.
The appellant is stated to have actually taken Mohinis father, Mohini and Rekha to Dattatraya temple in Jamnagar and placing his hands on the heads of Mohini and Rekha swore that they were his daughters.
She how ever was quite numbermal from 1st January, 1967.
Mohini, her father, Tribhovandas and Tribhovandas daughter and son.
The, appellant told her that police had companye and, therefore, she must leave through the back door and go to the road side directing her to go towards Gandhinagar and wait there for him.
Thereafter, the appellant went to Baroda in his car and he took with him, Mohini, her father Liladhar Jivraj, his manager Tribhovandas, Malti, daughter of Tribhovandas, who was about 12 years old, and Harish, a younger brother of Malati.
He further admitted that in the evening of 16th January, Narmada and Dinkerrai had approached him to inquire about Mohinis whereabouts but according to him Mohini had merely taken Rs.
During Christmas of 1965 the appellant had a trip to Bombay and during this trip also he took with him, the same party, viz.
250/ to Mohini and also got written 3 letters by Mohini addressed to himself the District Superintendent of Police Jamnagar and Mohinis father.
It appears that there was some kind of impression created in the mind of Mohinis father that he would be employed by the appellant as a manager of the factory to be installed at Baroda.
She added that she would make her own arrangements after 15 days.
The appellant is stated to have made an effort to companytact Mohini during this period.
