S.M. SIKRI, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 1967, whereby the High Court altered the conviction of Ram Das, under Section 366 to Section 363 of the IPC and reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from four years to two years. Subject to this modification the High Court dismissed the appeal.
2. The prosecution story, as accepted by the High Court, is that Mullu Singh, PW 1, Kumari Padma, PW 17, daughter of Mullu Singh and his wife Haribai, PW 2, lived in a quarter at Khamaria. The girl was at the relevant time a regular student of the Higher Secondary School, Khamaria. Ram Das, appellant, who was also a student, lived in a nearby quarter across the street and knew Kumari Padma. On November 25, 1966, Ram Das and Kumari Padma went to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jabalpur and got an agreement, stated to be a marriage agreement, Ex. P-11, registered.
3. In her evidence Kumari Padma stated that she had got acquainted with Ram Das about six years ago and had developed friendship with him. She further stated that her parents harassed and perplexed her and would not let her eat and drink. She thought of committing suicide even. Regarding the execution of the agreement she stated thus:
“Before the execution of the agreement I had a meeting with Ram Dass. I had the meeting with him 2 or 3 days prior to the 25th. I had a talk at the house of Ram Das. Nobody came to call me there. I reached there of my own. I came off at 11 or 12 o'clock in the day. ....I proposed the execution of a marriage agreement. At first Ram Das did not agree to my request. Ram Das admonished me saying, ‘first you study and then we shall think over this matter’. But as I was much distressed, I thought of committing suicide. For this reason, I said to Ram Das, ‘if you do not agree, I will commit suicide’. On being persuaded by me Ram Das got ready.”
Then she described about the purchase of a stamp paper and the execution of the agreement.
She further stated:
“After the agreement Ex. P-11 had been registered, myself, Shankar, Ajay and Kumari Jawa went to the cinema. Ram Das did not accompany us to the cinema.
After seeing the picture I came to my father in the evening. On the next day, the 26th, I went to the school. I informed my father of the agreement in the evening. My father got much annoyed with me on hearing thereof. I was subjected to a good deal of beating. My father held a consultation with his friends, and it was decided that I should be sent away to Narsinghpur and there married to another place (sic). On hearing it I got nervous and went over to the house of Ram Das that very day in the night. But my sister Kusum followed me there and took me back. When my father heard of that, he locked me up in the house. The lock was put on the door of the verandah. Thereafter I remained confined at my house up to 30th November.”
Later she stated:
“On 1-12-1966 my father was not at home. He left home in the morning. He would go to the factory daily. Perhaps that day too he went to the factory. I got an opportunity to come to the verandah. For this reason, I came into the verandah. I came there at 11 a.m. Then I broke open the lock on the outer door and went over to the house of Ram Das.”
“I pushed out the door and thus broke the lock and came out. After breaking the lock I went out to the house of Ram Das accused.”
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant, relying on S. Varandarajan v. State of Madras1 urged that on these facts it has not been established that there was any taking away or enticement within the meaning of Section 363 of the IPC and the High Court has omitted to consider that the girl after the registration of the agreement went back to her father's house. He contended that, according to the girl, she went back to her father's custody after the registration of the agreement and it was after a few days that she broke open the lock and went to stay with Ram Das. The learned Counsel for the respondent was unable to say that on these facts any offence under Section 363 had been made out.
5. We are accordingly of the view that no offence has been made out against the appellant under Section 363 of the IPC. In the result the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court set aside and the appellant's bail bond cancelled.