JUDGMENT 1. - The occurrence which has given rise to this appeal took place on January 22, 1973. The prosecutrix, Smt. Santosh Kumari was married to Satya Pal, who resides in village Bagthar, District Etah (U. P.). On January 22, 1973 she came from her husband's house along with her brother Jai Karan for going to the house of her younger sister named Munni Davi, who resided in village Biretha under Police Station, Dholpur, where she was married to Ramlal. According to the prosecution case, Jai Karan and Santosh Kumari alighted from the bus at Biretha bus stand and from there both of them started to go on foot towards Biretha village. On the way Balwant appellant met them and thinking that they were hungry, he gave Jai Karan some money to bring sweets from a sweet shop near the bus stand. While Jai Karan had gone for bringing sweets, another bus came from Agra and Balwant told Santosh Kumari that the bus would go via village Biretha and it would be more convenient if they sat in the bus and went to the village along with her luggage. As such Santosh Kumari entered into the bus along with Balwant and as she was not conversant with that region, she had no idea as to where Biretha village was situated. The bus stopped at Dholpur and there they got down from the bus and Balwant asked Santosh Kumari to get into another bus, then she got suspicious and enquired from Balwant as to where her brother was. on which Balwant asked her to keep quite, threatened her showing her a knife and directed her to sit quietly in the bus. Balwant along with Santosh Kumari reached another place in the evening and from there they went on foot for about two miles to village Sbata where Ram Singh, brother-in-law of Balwant, resided. There Santosh Kumari was kept in the house of Ram Singh with the intention of forcible marrying her to Shiv Singh son of Ram Singh. There Balwant is also said to have committed illicit intercourse with Santosh Kumari. 2. There Santosh Kumari was kept in the house of Ram Singh with the intention of forcible marrying her to Shiv Singh son of Ram Singh. There Balwant is also said to have committed illicit intercourse with Santosh Kumari. 2. Jai Karan, while he was purchasing sweets near the bus stand, saw Balwant and Santosh Kumari getting into the bus along with their luggage and thinking that they might have gone to village Biretha he went to her sister Munni Devi's house, but he was unable to find Balwant and Santosh Kumari there. He made an inquiry from the relatives of Munni Davi and was told that they had not reached that place. Then a relation of Munni Devi's husband informed him that Balwant's brother-in-law resides in village Shala and he might have taken Sontosh Kumari to that place. Thereupon Jai Karan went to Dholpur and from there he went to village Shala and on making inquiries there he found that Balwant had brought a girl and was staying at Ram Singh's house. Jai Karan went there and asked Balwant why he brought his sister there, on which Balwant replied that he would not allow the girl to go away and offered some money to Jai Karan and told him that Santosh Kumari would now be married to Shiv Singh. On which Jai Karan protested and told him that Santosh Kumari had already been married to Satyapal. A panchayat of the village was called in the evening and Jai Karan told the Panchas that Balwant had abducted his sister who was already married, on which the Panchas decided that Jai Karan should be allowed to take Santosh Kumari with him next morning. In the morning on the next day, Santosh Kumari and Jai Karan started from Ram Singh's house but when they reached near Hanumanji's temple, Shiv Singh and Kitabo, who were armed with lathis, over took them and Shiv Singh gave him lathi blows as a result of which he fell down. Then Kitabo and Shiv Singh took away Santosh Kumari to a nearby field. From there two other persons Munshi and Jawahar forcibly took away Santosh Kumari to another village from where the police party later rescued her. Then Kitabo and Shiv Singh took away Santosh Kumari to a nearby field. From there two other persons Munshi and Jawahar forcibly took away Santosh Kumari to another village from where the police party later rescued her. After Shiv Singh and Kitabo had forcibly taken away Santosh Kumari from Hanumanji's temple, Jai Karan went to village Bagthar in order to inform his brother-in-law Satyapal, husband of Santosh Kumari about what had happened. However, in the mean time, as Santosh Kumari did not return to her husband's house, he came down to village Biretha to make an inquiry from his sister-in-law Munni Davi and on coming to know that Balwant appellant had carried her away to village Shala, he went to police station, Maniya for making a report Jai Karan by that time also reached Police Station, Maniya where Satyapal lodged a first information report on February 1, 1973. According to Satyapal, his wife had gone away from village Bagthar on January 22, 1973 with her brother Jai Karan for meeting her sister Munni Devi at village Biretha, who was reported to be ill, but as she did not return Satyapal came to Biretha and on making an inquiry there he was informed that Balwant appellant had taken away his wife by employing deceitful means for the purpose of selling her away or for marrying her with some other person and had taken her to village Shala where Balwant had kept Santosh Kumari in the house of Ram Singh, but then Shiv Singh and Kitabo forcibly took her away and had kept his wife somewhere and that she should be recovered from the custody of the aforesaid persons. After making investigations the police recovered Santosh Kumari and thereafter put up a challan against appellant Balwant and Shiv Singh for offences under sections 366, 342 and 376 Indian Penal Code But as the appellant Balwant was absconding, only Shiv Singh was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge and after a trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur by his order dated May 17, 1974 convicted Shiv Singh for committing an offence under Section 366 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, while he was acquitted of offences under Section 342 and 376 I. P. C. 3. 500, while he was acquitted of offences under Section 342 and 376 I. P. C. 3. Meanwhile on January 22, 1974 appellant Balwant appeared in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate, Dholpur and thereafter the police presented a supplementary charge-sheet against him, on the basis of which learned Munsiff Magistrate, Dholpur by his order dated May 2, 1974 committed the appellant to stand his trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur for offences under Sections 376, 366 and 368 Indian Penal Code The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant under Sections 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code and after a trial acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 376 I. P. C., but convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 366 Indian Penal Code by his order dated October 7, 1974 and sentenced him to undergo four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. 4. Balwant appellant has filed the present appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur dated October 7, 1974. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant had taken me through the entire evidence on record. Both Santosh Kumari PW 2 and Jai Karan PW 3 have appeared in support of the prosecution case. Santosh Kumari has stated that while Balwant had sent away her brother Jai Karan to bring sweets from the shop near the bus stand, a bus arrived and Balwant asked her to get into the bus on the pretext that the bus would go through the village Biretha and that they could get down at the village. As she was resident of district Etah in Uttar Pradesh and was not conversant with this region, she did not know where village Biretha was situated and when the bus stopped at Dholpur, Balwant asked her to board another bus. On this she grew suspicious and asked Balwant as to where her brother Jai Karan was, on which Balwant threatened her and showed a knife and directed her to keep her silence. On this she grew suspicious and asked Balwant as to where her brother Jai Karan was, on which Balwant threatened her and showed a knife and directed her to keep her silence. She had no alternative in these circumstances but to accompany Balwant in another bus from which they alighted at about 4 p. m. and then she had to go with Balwant on foot to village Shala and there she was kept in the house of Ram Singh. She also stated that Balwant intended to marry her with Shiv Singh son of Ram Singh and demanded a sum of Rs. 2,500 from Ram Singh for this purpose, but although Ram Singh was not willing to pay the amount, yet Shiv Singh insisted that she should be kept there and he would arrange for the amount demanded by Balwant. She was, therefore, kept in the house of Ram Singh for 3 or 4 days when her brother Jai Karan arrived and asked Balwant as to why he had brought his sister and requested him to allow her to go, but Balwant and Shiv Singh refused to permit her to leave the place. Then a Panchayat was convened in the evening which decided that Jai Karan and Santosh Kumari should be allowed to go on the next morning. Jai Karan PW 3 has fully corroborated the testimony of PW 2 Santosh Kumari. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these two witnesses. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that force was not used by appellant Balwant in carrying away Santosh Kumari and no injuries were caused to her by Balwant. According to the learned Santosh Kumari willingly eloped with Balwant and as such no case of abduction was made out. From a perusal of the statement of PW 2 Santosh Kumari it is apparent that Balwant had practised deceit upon Santosh Kumari and asked her to board the bus on the pretext that he would take her to the house of her sister Munni Devi in village Biretha, but instead of taking her there, he took her in the first instance to Dholpur and then to village Shala, where Ram Singh and Shiv Singh resided. From this testimony it is clear that Balwant was responsible for adopting deceitful means for inducing Santosh Kumari to go to Dholpur and then to Shala. From this testimony it is clear that Balwant was responsible for adopting deceitful means for inducing Santosh Kumari to go to Dholpur and then to Shala. Under Section 362 Indian Penal Code compelling a person by force or inducing him by deceitful means to go from any place amount to an offence of abduction. There are two alternative conditions under which the offence of abduction could be held to be made out and while one of them is when a person is compelled to go from a place by force, the other alternative is when a person is induced by deceitful means to go from one place to another. In the present case there can be no doubt from the evidence on record that Balwant induced Santosh Kumari by employing deceitful means to go with him in the first place to Dholpur and then to village Shala as he mislead her by telling her that he was taking to village Biretha where the house of her sister Munni Devi was situated. In these circumstances, the commission of the offence of abduction has been fully brought home to the appellant. 7. Another contention advanced by the learned counsel was that although the occurrence had taken place on January 22, 1973, yet the first information report in respect thereof was lodged on February 1, 1973 and that no reasonable explanation was offered for the delay. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that Jai Karan did not lodge any report although the Police Station was situated nearby. It appears from the evidence of Jai Karan PW 3 that Balwant was his near relative as his father's sister's daughter was married to Balwant. It has also come in the statement of Jai Karan that Balwant used to visit their house off and on. It is also in his evidence that Balwant helped in arranging the marriage of Santosh Kumari's younger sister Munni Devi. Thus it appears that Balwant was known to Jai Karan and was related to him and probably for that reason he did not rush to lodge a first information report immediately after coming to know that Balwant had taken away her sister Santosh Kumari. Thus it appears that Balwant was known to Jai Karan and was related to him and probably for that reason he did not rush to lodge a first information report immediately after coming to know that Balwant had taken away her sister Santosh Kumari. As a matter of fact, Jai Karan went to village Shala and to the house of Ram Singh and entreated Balwant and Ram Singh to allow his sister to go away with him, but Balwant refused to accede to his request. It was at that stage that Jai Karan came to know that Balwant had taken Santosh Kumari with the intention of compelling her to marry against her will with Shiv Singh son of Ram Singh. Then with the assistance of the Panchas, Jai Karan was able to take his sister Santosh Kumari with him from village Shala, but on their way back Shiv Singh and Kitabo inflicted lathi blows upon him and forcibly took away Santosh Kumari to the forest. Thereafter Jai Karan went to Etah to inform Santosh Kumari's husband Satya Pal about the occurrence where he found that Satya Pal had already left for Biretha and from there he went to Maniya where Satya Pal had gone to lodge a report. Although there was some delay in lodging the first information report in the present case, but it appears that satisfactory explanation in respect thereof has been furnished by Jai Karan and Satya Pal. 8. The next submission of the learned counsel was that the prosecutrix Santosh Kumari was a married grown up lady and that there was no question of her abduction by Balwant, but she appears to have eloped with Balwant of her own free will. Learned counsel submitted that the sole testimony of Santosh Kumari should not be believed in this respect without independent corroboration and in support of this submission he placed reliance on the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Murti v. State of Haryana, 1970 CLJ 991 In the aforesaid case the facts were entirely different, in as much as the prosecutrix made several divergent statements at different stages and improved upon her earlier statement by falsely implicating two other persons. Moreover, in that case their Lordships found that even before the occurrence the prosecutrix and the accused indulged in sexual intercourse on a number of times, so much so that the prosecutrix became pregnant an the accused arranged for her abortion. In such circumstances their Lordships observed that in the case of a grown up lady who was used to sexual intercourse, in order to accept her statement that she was compelled, threatened or otherwise induced to go with the accused, there should be corroboration of material particulars from some independent source and her bare statement could not be considered sufficient to sustain the conviction and on account of the earlier illicit intimacy between the prosecutrix and the accused their Lordships did not hold that the offence of abduction was proved in that case in the absence of evidence of inducement, threat or compulsion on the part of the accused towards the prosecutrix. But in the present case, as I have already observed above, the appellant Balwant had sent Jai Karan away for bringing sweets and then asked Santosh Kumari to board the bus which had then arrived, on the pretext that they would get down in village Biretha where the house of her younger sister Munni Devi was situated. Santosh Kumai went with the appellant in the bus in good faith but then the appellant took her to Dholpur and from there to village Shala, which facts fully prove that he had intended to mislead Santosh Kumari.In Ramjilal and Another v. The State, AIR 1951 Raj. 33 , a Divisional Bench of this Court observed : "The expression "deceitful means" is wide enough to include the inducing of a girl to leave her guardian's house on a pretext. "Deceit" according to its plain dictionary meaning, signifies anything intended to mislead another. It is really speaking, a matter of intention and even if the promise held out by the accused is fulfilled by him, the question is whether he is acting in a bona fide manner when he is extending certain promises to a woman and thereby inducing her to accompany him." Thus there is no doubt that Santosh Kumari was induced by deceitful means by the appellant to go from place to place and there is nothing on record to support the contention that she might have eloped of her own accord with Balwant. Jai Karan and Santosh Kumari were going to their younger sister's house and there does not appear to be any prior arrangement between Balwant and Santosh Kumari nor there is any other material on record to throw any doubt regarding, the fact that Balwant compelled Santosh Kumari to go with him to Dholpur and then to Shala village. Besides the evidence of Santosh Kumari in this respect, Jai Karan has also stated that when he met Santosh Kumari in village Shala she immediately told him that Balwant took her away from the place where he left them on the pretext that they would go in the bus to village Biretha where the house of Munni Devi situated. Thus there is no escape from the conclusion that the pretext or promise extended by Balwant to Santosh Kumari was intended to mislead her and was not bona fide. The offence of abduction is, therefore, fully proved. 9. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Allahabad High Court in Nura and Others v. Rex, AIR 1949 Allahabad 710 for the submission that actual force should have been used for conviction for an offence under Section 366 Indian Penal Code However, in the aforesaid case it was clearly held that either employing of force or practising any fraud could be sufficient for holding a person guilty under Section 362 Indian Penal Code The use of actual force is only required to be proved for conviction under the second part of Section 366 I. P C. of which criminal intimidation forms a necessary ingredient, but for the first part abduction of a woman with the intention of compelling her to marry with another person against her will is sufficient to complete the offence punishable under Section 366 Indian Penal Code In the present case the employment of deceitful means by Balwant appellant for inducing Santosh Kumari to go from place to place with the intention of compelling her to marry with another person against her will having been proved, the offence under Section 356 Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant. 10. Lastly learned counsel submitted that the sentence awarded to the appellant is excessive. 10. Lastly learned counsel submitted that the sentence awarded to the appellant is excessive. In the present case it cannot be denied that the appellant was related to the prosecutrix Santosh Kumari and he took undue advantage of the faith that she reposed in him and deceived her and having full knowledge of the fact that Santosh Kumari was a married woman, he took her to village Shala with the intention of marrying her again with Shiv Singh against her will. In these circumstances, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel, as I do not find any reason for imposing a lesser sentence upon the appellant. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order: passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur convicting the appellant under Section 366 I.P.C. and the sentence awarded to him is upheld. *******