Breaking News

Thakorlal D. Vadgama vs State of Gujarat

Thakorlal D Vadgama vs State of Gujarat

Case Name : Thakorlal D Vadgama vs State of Gujarat

Author : Tulsi Arya


2313, 1974 SCR (1) 178


Dua, I.D.


Despite the fact that a minor joins the blamed voluntarily, at that point it doesn’t sums to “taking” however accused will even now be charge for kidnapping under section 361 and 366 of IPC, on the off chance that he had an expectation to entice her to take part in unlawful intercourse, if there is abundant material demonstrating ‘alluremenet’ and in the impact of that allurement she intentionally leave the lawful custody .


Kishori Lal was an Industrialist and had a factory at bunder street, Jamnagar. Leeladhar Jivraj came to live incidentally approach his processing plant with his better half Narmada and little girl Mohini.

Mohini was 15 years of age school going young girl. On her birthday kishorilal gave her over the top expensive Parker pen.

He took Mohini and Jivraj alongside his manager and his little girl on Bombay excursion to observe Christmas on December 1965. There he had sex with Mohini while remaining in lodging for 2 Nights.

They again went out traveling to Mahabaleshwar, this time mohini’s mom found something fishy between her little girl and kishorilal. She disclosed to her better half about it, he scolded Mohini.

Mohini composed letters to him griping of abuse by her folks and communicating her craving to go out. He guaranteed her that he will give recompense to her on January 16,1967. Mohini flee from her parent’s home and went to kishorilal’s place. She remained in his carport and he gave clothes,food and gave rupees 250.

On 17 January 1967 police came to Kishori Lal Bunglow. Mohini flee from the secondary passage and went to side of the road where she found by police. Mohini’s garments were found from his car. Kishorilal was charged under section 361, 366 and 376 of IPC for kidnapping and rape.


The main issue for this situation was that whether the appealing party argue innocence against the charge of kidnapping since there was no quick taking by him respondent left her legal guardianship voluntarily.


Trial court convicted kishorilal for both rape and kidnapping. Gujarat High Court acquitted him against the offence of rape but convicted him for kidnapping.

The word ‘takes’ in section 361 of IPC does not necessarily connot taking by force and it is not confined only to use of force, actual or constructive. This word merely means ‘to cause to go’ or ‘to get into possession’.

The word ‘entice’ means ‘to involve the idea of inducement or allurement’ by giving rise to hope and desire in the other. If the minor leaves her parents house influenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party then the latter will be guilty of an offence as defined in section 361 of IPC.

Supreme Court upheld that the decision of  high court by saying that guilty party laid Foundation by inducement allurement  or threat  and it has influenced minor or weighed with her in leaving her guardians custody or keeping or going to guilty party then the prime facie difficult for him to plead for innocence.

By holding the accused liable under section 366 Supreme Court says that the mere circumstances that his Act was not immediate cause of her leaving her guardian custody would constitute no valid defence and would not absolve him from the offence of kidnapping.

Thakorlal D Vadgama vs State of Gujarat