THAKORLAL D. VADGAMA versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 178 · Decided: 02-05-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: I.D. DUA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

178 
THAKORLAL D. VADGAMA 
v. 
THE STATE OF GUJARAT 
May 2, 1973 
[K. K. MATHEW AND I. 0. DUA, JJ.] 
111dh1.n Penal Code, S. 366-When a person "takes" or "entices'' away a minor 
girl from rhe custody of her lawful guardian-The scope of the section. 
The accused. was convicted by the trial court under Ss. 366 and 376 l.P.C. 
Ou appeal. the Hii:h Court acquitted him of the offence under s. 376 I.P.C.; 
but upheld the conviction and sentence under s. 366 I.P.C. 'OD the ground that 
the appellant had taken out a minor girl out of the keeping of her parents (her 
lawfut guardian) 
with an intention that she may be seduced to illicit inter-
course. 
On appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that since the girl left her 
parents' house out of her own accord due to the harsh treatment of her pareats 
and as the appellant kept her in his house out of compassion and sympath~· for 
the helpless girl. the charge under s. 366 I.P.C. was unsustainable. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
A 
B 
c 
HELD : (i) The legal position '''ith respect of an offence under s. 366 
1.P.C. is clear. Jn Siate of Haryana v. Raja Rani A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 819 it 
D 
was observed by this Court that the object of Section 361 seems as 
much io 
protect the minor children from being seduced for improper 
purposes as 
to 
protect the rights and privileges of guardians having the lawful charges or cus-
lody of their minor wards. 
The gravamen of this (kidnapping) is the 'taking' 
or 'enticing' of a minor girl under the ages specified :n the section, out of the 
keeping of the lawful guardian \Vithout his consent and section 366 provides for 
punishment of whoever kidnaps a woman for illicit intercourse 
or 
for 
the 
purp"Jse of marriage against her will. [187C] 
E 
(ii) The word 'takes' in section 361 I. P. C. does not necessarily connote 
, taking by force and it is not confined only to use of force, actual or cons-
. tructive. This word merely means "to cause to go", "to escort'' or "to get 
into possession''. The word "e~tice" means to involve the idea of inducement 
or allurement by giving rise to hope or desire in the other. If the minor leaves 
her parental home, influenced by any promise, offer or inducement en1anating 
from the guilty party then the latter will be guilty of an offence as defi:ted 
in s. 361 l.P .C. [187HJ 
F 
(iii) In the present case, the circumstances in which the appellant and the 
victim came close to each other and the manner in which he 
is stated to 
have given her presents etc. and the letters written by the victim to the appel-
lant furnish very important and essential background to the offence \Vhich 
the appeliant committed. Therefore. the two courts blow have rightly con-
victed the appellant under sec. 366 I. P. C. [J 88GJ 
State of Harya11a v. Raja·R:im A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 819 
referred to 
and 
G 
S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, 11965J 1 S.C.R. 243 distinguished. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 
1970. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
December 15, 1969 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 
827 of 1967. 
R. H. Dhebar and S. K. Dho/akia, for the appellant. 
R. L. Kohli and S. P. Navar, for the respondent. 
H 
·. 
THAKORLAL v. GUJARAT (Dua, I.) 
179 
A 
The Judgm~nt of the Court was delivered by 
DuA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judg· 
m~nt and order of the Gujarat High Court allowing in part the appel-
lant's appeal from his conviction by the Court of the Sessions Judge, 
Jamnagar under ss. 366 and 376, LP .C. 
The. High Court ac-
quitted him of the offence under s. 375, I.P .C. but maintained his 
·a 
conviction and sentence under s. 366, I.P.C. 
c 
D 
' 
H 
Accordini: to the prosecution case, the offence under s. 366, I.P.C., 
took: place on January 16, 1967 and the offence of rape with which 
he was charged was committed on the night between the 16th and 17th 
January, 1967. As observed by the High Court, the 
background 
which led to the culmination resulting in the commission of the 
offences leading to the appellant's trial has been traced by Mohin, the 
victim of the offences, in the prosecution version, to the latter part of 
tile year 1965. The appellant, an industrialist, had a factory at Bunder 
Road for manufacturing oil engines . and adjoining the factory was his 
residential bungalow. During the bombardment Qf J.amnagar by Pakis-
tan in 1965, Mohini's parents came to re8ide 
temporarily at Dhrol 
near Jamnagar. 
The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.