On the 12th December at about 11 40 p.m. Yamunabai went to Padamji Gate police station and lodged a companyplaint there.
Thereafter she was medically examined and it was found that she was pregnant.
Therein she made the allegation that the appellant used to companye to her house for companyching Shilavati in harmonium, that she learnt that he had sent a chit to her daughter in her absence and had called her to his house and that on enquiries about Shilavatis whereabouts he had given evasive answers.
Appeal by special leave granted by the Supreme Court on the 14th February, 1952 from the Order dated the 17th September, 1951 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bavdekar and Chainani JJ.
Ananda, uncle of the girl, deposed to the same effect.
I do number know whether he has taken away my daughter number have I seen him taking her away.
M. H. Gyani appellant used to companye to my house for companyching up my daughter in singing.
A search should therefore be made for her I again state that my daughter left the house after quarrelling with my mother Harnabai.
In this letter she sent her regards to the appellant.
I have mentioned his name in my application through mistake.
78 of 1951.
1026 of 1951 arising out of Judgment and Order dated the 28th July, 1951, of the Court of the Third Additional Sessions Judge of Poona in Sessions Case No.
The relevant part of this letter is in these terms Since last so many days, I have left the house and I have number sent any letter to you and you must also be worrying as to where I have gone.
This is given in writing.
She asserted therein that she was sure that numberody but both M. H. Gyani and Badsha had kidnapped her daughter.
Prahlad, brother of Shilavati, a boy of school going age, deposed that he saw Shilavati going with the appellant while he was playing outside the school.
On the 14th March, 1950, a letter, Exhibit 4 G, was sent by Shilavati to her mother.
On the 13th she sent a companyplaint to the Police Inspector, A Division, Poona.
To prove the case against the appellant the prosecution examined in all sixteen witnesses.
In the witness box Yamuna Bai, as already stated, gave a different story and Shilavati herself did number fully support the version of her mother.
I am at Bombay and quite well too.
In the companyplaint it was stated that Shilavati had quarrelled with one Shantabai and had left the house and since then she had number returned.
The police were asked to find out her whereabouts.
When later on she sent an application to the Collector accusing the appellant and Badsha of having kidnapped her daughter she.
Namdeo, who is a bricklayer, stated that on the 12th December while he was returning after companypleting his work at about 3 30 p. m. he saw Shilavati going with the appellant.
J did number like it and he was going to companyvert me to Mahomedanism.
But there was a boy staying, there whom I told all the facts and told him to save me anyhow.
Shilavati was examined as P, W, 10 and she deposed that the accused came to her house at about 3 30 p.m. and told her that there was a singing party at Kirkee and that she should accompany him there, that she went with him on the promise that the appellant would send her back before her mother returned home, that while at the appellants house she was asked to smell certain scents and she felt giddy and companyld number speak and when she came to senses in the morning she found herself in Bombay in a hut at Sion.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.96 of 1952.
He therefore accepted it.
S. B. Chari and J. B. Dadachanji for the appellant.
In July, 1950, Yamunabai sent an application to the Collector of Poona.
She further said that on enquiry from one Kassam she was told that the appellant had left her there.
The prosecution case was that on the 12th December, 1949, the appellant who was a. music teacher went to the house of Shilavati and on the pretext that there was a girl waiting in his house and that he wanted to companypare the voice of Shilavati with the voice of the girl took her to his house, and with the assistance of one Iqbal Putlabai accused 2 kidnapped her.
Out of these four were eye witnesses, viz.,
March 30.
On medical examination it was found that Shilavati was a girl of 15 or 16 years of age and that she was pregnant.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court but this was summarily dismissed.
Yamunabai, the mother of Shilavati, stated that on 12th December when she returned home in the evening she learnt from her sister in law Jamunabai and others that the appellant had taken Shilavati on the pretext that he wanted to companypare her voice with that of one Prabha who was waiting in his house and thereafter Shilavati had number companye back, that on getting this information she along with her brothers and sister in law went to the house of the appellant and questioned him as to why Shilavati was number sent back, whereupon the appellant replied that he had sent her by bus.
He beat me twice or thrice.
To whom shall I express my sorrow ?
in Criminal Appeal No.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India, Porus A. Mehta, with him for the respondent.
I felt very sorry for this and I was very much sad.
My daughter has gone out of my house to some other place.
In this application she said that she had appointed the appellant as a. music master for her daughter, that on Monday the 12th December, 1949, at about 6 p. m. the appellant and his friend Badsha had induced and kidnapped her to an unknown place.
The Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that the verdict was number perverse.
Shilavati was traced in Bombay after four months in the house of one Babu Konde.
There were two days remaining for my marriage.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty by a majority of three to two.
asserted that they had taken her away to an unknown.place at 6 p. m., though the occurrence in then earlier companyplaints was alleged to have taken place at about 3 30 p. m. The letter of 14th March, 1960, written at the instance of Shilavati to Yamunabai falsifies all the versions given by her and clearly suggests that the girl left the house of her own accord.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J. The appellant on 28th July, 1951, was companyvicted on a charge under section 366, Indian Penal Code, for having kidnapped at Poona a minor girl Shilavati in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years after a trial before the third additional Sessions Judge of that place sitting with a jury of live.
As Shilavati did number return home, she went to the police and lodged a companyplaint.
Do number worry about me, I had gone to the river at Bamburda, and there some one forced me and brought me to Bombay and he was prepared to marry with me.
Prahlad, Jamunabai, Namdeo and Shilavati.
He read out the application to her and recorded her statement which reads thus My daughter Shilavati age about 13/14 has left my house at 4 p.m. I made search for my daughter at the house of my paternal aunt, but I companyld number find her there.
He was an ordinary and old fellow.
The police head companystable who was on duty on receipt of this companyplaint examined Yamunabai.
