Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The only relevant clause of Section 223 is Clause (d) and it reads as under:

(d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction.

It must, therefore, be found as to whether in the present case, the concerned five accused who are alleged to have committed different offences against the complainant have committed them in the course of the same transaction. If the answer is 'yes', Section 223(d) would clearly apply to the present case. Consequently, by virtue of Section 184(b), Baroda Court would get jurisdiction to inquire in or try all the offences against all the concerned five accused and in that eventuality, as per Section 156(1) of the Code, Karelibag police station at Baroda in its turn would also get jurisdiction to investigate into all these offences against the concerned accused. If the answer is in the negative, the result would be opposite. I have already reproduced in details the relevant averments in the complaint, A conjoint reading of the said averments leaves no room for doubt that different sets of accused are alleged to have committed distinct offences at different places. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to have committed the offence of kidnapping the complainant at Baroda obviously within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court at Baroda. Mr. Barot for the petitioners submitted, before me that the offence of kidnapping is complete moment the alleged minor is taken out of the custody of his legal guardian. There cannot be any dispute about the aforesaid legal position. So far as the offence of emasculation is concerned, the complaint discloses that accused No. 2 conveyed the complainant to Kalol after allegedly threatening him and saw to it that he was emasculated at Kalol with the assistance of accused Nos, 3, 4 and 5. Mr. Barot is, therefore, right when he contends that as per the complaint, offence of emasculation was allegedly committed by accused Nos. 2 to 5 at Kalol within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalol, District Mehsana. Thus, two distinct offences under Section 364 on one hand and Section 326, I.P.C. on the other are alleged to have been committed by different sets of accused at two different places in two different districts. But the matter does not rest there. A close look at the complaint show that the entire modus operandi of the concerned accused was to see that the complainant who was alleged to be a minor boy was won over to their fold and was made a eunuch. That seems to be the 'be all' and 'end all' or the prime motive of the concerned accused, at least accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. They do not appear to be merely interested in kidnapping the minor boy and to make him a begger on his own which he was even prior to the incident, but their real object appears to be, as alleged in the complaint, (truth or falsity of allegations whereof is still to be ascertained at the time of trial and for which I obviously cannot and do not express any opinion one way or the other to make the complainant a eunuch and to have one more addition to their fold with the ultimate object of having an additional professional begger of their own type. The complainant has clearly stated that he was made to stay at the house of accused No. 1 who was eunuch, for about three days and thereafter he was taken to the residential locality of eunuchs at Baranpura, Baroda city where he was made to put on lady's dress and he was forced to put on this dress as he was surrounded by many eunuchs. It, therefore, appears clear that the real object of allegedly kidnapping the complainant was to make him a eunuch and it is with that object in view that initial offence of kidnapping was allegedly committed by accused Nos. 1 and 2. The complaint further recites that accused No. 2 and other accused who threatened the complainant forcibly took him to Kalol where with the assistance of accused Nos. 3 to 5, final object of emasculation was carried into effect and even thereafter, he was brought to the headquarters of eunuchs at Baranpura locality, Baroda city. Thus, the entire cycle was complete the moment the complainant after his emasculation was brought back to Baroda, in Baranpura locality where he was even earlier made to stay in the company of eunuchs having been forced to put on lady's dress. It, therefore, prima facie appears that the act of kidnapping is so closely intertwined with the final act of emasculation that both these offences appear to be part and parcel of a common design and are components of the same transaction. Mr. Btrot at this stage submitted that so far as accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned,, they are not even alleged to have shared the original design of accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Baroda where they kidnapped the complainant, the alleged minor, whom they confined at Baroda with the alleged ultimate object of getting him emasculated,