Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Indian Case Summary

Thakorlal D. Vadgama vs The State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 1973 – Case Summary

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In the case of Thakorlal D. Vadgama vs The State Of Gujarat, decided on 2 May 1973, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the interpretation and application of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This case is a significant one in the annals of Indian jurisprudence, as it delves into the nuances of the law related to the abduction of minor girls and the scope of the term “takes” or “entices” as used in the IPC.

Facts of the Case

The accused, Thakorlal D. Vadgama, was charged with the offenses under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused had taken a minor girl out of the custody of her lawful guardians (her parents) with the intention of seducing her to illicit intercourse. The girl was said to have left her parents’ house due to their harsh treatment, and the accused had kept her in his house out of compassion and sympathy for her. The trial court convicted the accused under both sections, but on appeal, the High Court acquitted him of the offense under Section 376 IPC, while upholding the conviction under Section 366 IPC.

Issues Raised

The primary issue raised in this case was the interpretation of Section 366 IPC, particularly the meaning of the terms “takes” or “entices” in the context of a minor girl being taken or enticed away from the custody of her lawful guardian. The appellant contended that the charge under Section 366 IPC was unsustainable since the girl had left her parents’ house of her own accord due to their harsh treatment.

Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, made several key observations. It clarified the legal position with respect to an offense under Section 366 IPC, stating that the object of Section 361 (from which Section 366 derives) seems as much to protect minor children from being seduced for improper purposes as to protect the rights and privileges of guardians having lawful custody of their minor wards.

The Court further elaborated on the meaning of the term “takes” in Section 361 IPC, stating that it does not necessarily connote taking by force and is not confined only to the use of force, actual or constructive. The term “takes” merely means “to cause to go”, “to escort” or “to get into possession”. Similarly, the term “entice” involves the idea of inducement or allurement by giving rise to hope or desire in the other.

In the context of the case at hand, the Court observed that the circumstances in which the appellant and the victim came close to each other, the manner in which he gave her presents, and the letters written by the victim to the appellant provided an essential background to the offense committed by the appellant. Therefore, the two lower courts had rightly convicted the appellant under Section 366 IPC.

The Court also referred to the case of State of Haryana v. Raja Ram A.I.R., 1973 S.C. 819 and distinguished it from S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 243.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Thakorlal D. Vadgama under Section 366 IPC, thereby reinforcing the legal position that taking or enticing a minor girl away from the custody of her lawful guardian, even without the use of force, constitutes an offense under the IPC.