Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri C.P. Sen argued Criminal Revision Application No. 114 of 1997. Learned Advocate Shri Uday Dastane for the applicant in Criminal Revision Application No. 134 of 1997 adopted the arguments advanced by Shri C.P. Sen, Senior Counsel Learned App Shri A. G. Mujumdar argued on behalf of the State in both the revision applications.

4. The main contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant is that kidnapping was completed at Nagpur and no consequence of this offence of kidnapping had taken place at Jabalpur and since the alleged rape had taken place at Jabalpur, the applicants cannot be tried at Nagpur. According to him, Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on Emperor v. Mohanlal Aditram reported in AIR 1928 Bombay 475 (2): (1919 (30) Cri LJ 191); In re Jivandas Savchand, reported in AIR 1930 Bombay 490; Kashi Ram Mehta v. Emperor, ; State v. Tavara Naika, . The State v. Sri Lal, reported in 1971 Cri LJ 141 and Jagan Nath v. State of Haryana, reported in 1983 Cri LJ 1574. On the question of applicability of Section 223(d) (old corresponding Section 239(d)), reliance has been placed on Babulal Chaukhani v. King Emperor, . The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, . Rulings on scope and ambit of Section 34 of IPC and Section 149 of IPC have also been placed before me. It is also urged that alternatively on merits it is a case of consent and the prosecution of the applicants is ill founded.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant had next relied upon The State v. Sri Lal (supra). In this case, reliance was placed on Kashi Ram Mehta v. Emperor (supra); Emperor v. MohanlalAditram (supra) and State v. Tavara Naika (supra). In this case, a girl below 18 years was kidnapped by Srilal, Bhaiyan Singh and Chhotey Bhaiya from village Manjhia which is in district Hardoi with the intention that she may be raped by Srilal and Bhaiyan Singh. She was said to have been actually raped by said two accused persons in village Beoli which fell within the district of Unnao. This objection prevailed with the Sessions Judge who made this reference to the High Court. The view of the Sessions Court was upheld by the High Court on the ground that the facts of the case were not covered by Section 179 of Cr.P.C. It was found that Section 179 contemplates two things; the first is that the offender has done an act and the second is that a consequence has been followed by such act. The offences contemplated under Section 179 are those which are not complete till a special consequence has ensued and this consequence must be an essential ingredient of the offence. It was held that the offence of kidnapping is complete as soon as the person is kidnapped with the requisite guilty intention or knowledge and the consequence of the kidnapping or abduction does not form an essential part of the offence of kidnapping or abduc-tion under Section 366 of IPC.

12. Lastly, reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants on Jagan Nath v. State of Haryana (supra). In this case, reliance was placed on the State v. Sri Lal (supra) and the view taken in Rampratap v. State was dissented. It was held that the provisions of Section 220 of Cr.P.C. 1973 on the basis of which Rajasthan High Court had rendered findings, would not be applicable since the said provisions would be applicable to offences which are committed in series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction. In this case, the offence of kidnapping took place at Ambala and the minor girl was taken to Delhi where she was raped. It was held that the offence of kidnapping is complete as soon as the person is kidnapped with the requisite guilty intention or knowledge and the consequence of kidnapping or abduction does not form an essential part of the offence of kidnapping or abduction. The accused therein had been tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. The High Court held that the accused cannot be tried at Ambala for the offence of rape alleged to have been committed at Delhi. Even in spite of these findings, the conviction of the appellant/accused Baij Nath was maintained under Section 376 of IPC but the sentence was reduced. His conviction and sentence under Section 363 of IPC was also maintained. In respect of the other co-accused Jagan Nath, it was found that there is no evidence that he actually took part in kidnapping the prosecutrix. There was allegation of rape against him, but, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 on the ground that he could not be tried for it at Ambala.

21. In the case under consideration, kidnapping was with the intention that the prosecutrix will be compelled or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced to illicit intercourse and even though the offence under Section 366 of I.P.C. was complete when the prosecutrix was kidnapped from the lawful guaadianship with the said intention, yet the purpose for which she was kidnapped was achieved at Jabalpur where she was repeatedly raped by large number of boys. The offences in question are so connected as to form cause and effect that the offences in question can be tried at Nagpur. The offences in question are of series of acts so connected together as to form part of the same transaction. Though in Rampratap v. State and State of Karnataka v. M. Balakrishna (supra), the offences of kidnapping and rape were against the same person though committed in jurisdiction of different Courts and would fall under Section 220(1) of Cr.P.C, yet the same principle has to be extended and applied to the cases falling under Section 223(d) of Cr.P.C