The main issue for this situation was that whether the appealing party argues innocence against the charge of kidnapping since there was no quick taking by him respondent left her legal guardianship voluntarily.
l The appellant’s main argument was that it was Mohini who, feeling unhappy and perhaps harassed in her parents’ house, left it on her own accord and came to the appellant’s house for help which he gave out of compassion and sympathy for the helpless girl in distress. Mohini’s parents were, according to the counsel, unreasonably harsh on her on account of some erroneous or imaginary suspicion which they happen to entertain about the appellant’s attitude towards their daughter or the relationship between the two, and that it was primarily her parents’ insulting and stern behavior towards her which induced her to leave her parental home. If he had at an earlier stage solicited or induced her in any manner to leave her father’s protection, by conveying or indicating or encouraging suggestion that he would give hershelter, then the mere circumstance that his act was not the immediate cause of her leaving her parental home or guardian’s custody would constitute no valid defence and would not absolve him.
On considering all the matters in detail the court took into consideration the circumstances in which the appellant and Mohini came close to each other and how he started to have given her presents and tried to be intimate with her. These circumstances, among others, show that the main substratum of the story as revealed by Mohini in her evidence is probable and trustworthy and it admits of no reasonable doubt as to its truthfulness. Therefore, no hesitation in holding that the conclusions of the two courts below concerning the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. is unexceptionable. The evidence of the constant behaviour of the appellant towards Mohini for several months preceding the incident on the 16th and 17 January 1967, completely brings the case within the passage at p. 248 of the decision cited. The court had ample material showing earlier allurements and even of the appellant’s participation in the formation of Mohini’s intention and resolve to leave her father’s house. The appellant’s conviction was therefore upheld.
The expression used in Section 361, I.P.C. is “whoever takes or entices any minor”. The word “takes” does not necessarily connote taking by force and it is not conned only to use of force, actual or constructive. This word merely means, “to cause to go”, “to escort” or “to get into possession”. No doubt it does mean physical taking, but not necessarily by use of force or fraud. The word “entice”seemsto involve the idea of inducement or allurement by giving rise to hope or desire in the other. This can take many forms;some of them may be quite subtle, depending on theirsuccess on the mentalstate of the person at the time when the inducement isintended to operate. This may work immediately or it may create continuous and gradual but imperceptible impression culminating aftersome time, in achieving its ultimate purposes ofsuccessful inducement. The two words “take” and “entices”, as used in Section 361, I.P.C. is in our opinion, intended to be read together so that each takes to some extent it's color and content from the other. The statutory language suggests that if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer, or inducement emanating from the guilty party, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offense as defined in Section 361, I.P.C. But if the guilty party haslaid a foundation by inducement, allurement or threat, etc. and if this can be considered to have influenced the minor or weighed with her in leaving her guardian’s custody or keeping and going to the guilty party, then prima facie it would be difficult for him to plead innocence on the ground that the minor had voluntarily come to him.
The letters were written by her to the appellant mainly in November 1966 and in December 1966 and also the letter was written by Mohini’s mother to the appellant in September 1966 furnish very important and essential background in which the culminating incident of January 16 and 17, 1967 has to be examined. The suspicion entertained by Mohini’s mother is also in our opinion, relevant in considering the truth of the story as narrated by the prosecutrix. This letter indicates how the mother of the girl belonging to a comparatively poorer family felt when confronted with a rich man’s dishonorablebehavior towards her young, impressionable/immature daughter; a man who also suggested to render financial help to her husband in time of need.