1. Per Curiam:— We think that there is no reasonable ground for interfering with the Convictions. Minute discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution have been pointed out. Most of them have been-explained. We are not prepared to attach any importance to the residue The main contentions are that no taking or enticing from the keeping of a legal guardian is established: that even if it were, the present appellants are not shown to have had knowledge of it, that the appellants attempted no concealment or confinment and have not even been satisfactorily that the age of Jetki has not been proved as below sixten years.
2. Looking to the broad features of the case, we think it would be very difficult to hold that the girl Jetki was not deliberately taken beyond the reach of those who would have a right to control her conduct and in view of the conduct of the present appellants it would be equallydifficult to hold that they were not fully aware of the nature of the transaction. They took away the girl by night in a closed carriage from the house of the accused No 1, who did not accompany them, to a solitary bungalow far away from the town and detained her there during two days and nights. Their defence was a complete denial of all connection with the matter—and that denial failing in faoe of the evidence adduced, they allege that they had no knowledge whatever of any impropriety in the removal of Jetki from the keeping of any lawful guardian. But we think that their conduct in itself was inconsistent with this allegation. The removal of Jetki alone, and with every precaution for secrecy—to an empty and remote bungalow—indicates that they were aware of the necessity to conceal it from persons who could have interposed with authority.
3. Next it was contended that Jetki had voluntarily left the keeping of her lawful guardian before any of the three accused persons took or en???iced her; and English cases were cited to show that in such circumstances no subsequent taking or enticing would be an offence. We think that there may be danger in construing the provisions of the Indian Penal Code with referencs to decisions in England on ah enactment of another Legislature and applicable to conditions different from those now in question.
4. In the English enactments referred to, the word “possession” is used to indicate the relation between the minor and the guardian which must be severed to constitute the offence. The phrase in s. 361 used in “keeping of the lawful guardian.” The Legislature has advisedly preferred this phrase to the word “possession” which frequently recurs in the Code—in connection with inanimate objects.
5. The word “keeping” we think connotes the fact that it is compatible with independence of action and movement in the object kept. It implies neither prehension nor detention but rather maintenance protection and control, manifested not by continual action but as available on necessity arising; And this relation between the minor and the guardian is, we think, certainly not dissolved so long as the minor can, at will, take advantage of it, and place herself within the sphere of its operation. In the present instance we have no hesitation, in holding that the relation was not dis-solved at the time when the first accused met the minor in the market of its precincts. We see no reason to suppose that it had ceased before the appellants in these two appeals (213 and 214) arrived at the house of the first accused or even until they entered the hired carriage with the minor. Prom that moment, it may be, but so far as the evidence goes, no earlier, commenced the removal of the minor from a position in which she could avail herself of the keeping of her guardian—and we think that the appellants mast have beea fully aware from the precautions taken by them that this would be the result of their action in so taking the minor away with them. We cannot accept the suggestion that the appellants must have been ignorant that the minor had a lawful guardian. Her age and sex rendered that a matter of practical certainty and the clandestine removal is evidence that the appellants realised this.
6. We are unable to regard as serious the contention that there was no concealment in the removal by night of the minor to an empty bungalow far from the town. The same remark applies to the contention that there is no proof of age. There is nothing to rebut the medical evidence. Lastly it was urged thai the identification of the appellants as the persons who removed Jetki, is in sufficient Jetki and we think also the driver and the pagi at the bungalow, had???ample opportunity for becoming acquainted with the appearance of the whole party who in the peculiar circumstances would naturally attract special observation. The conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge is one with which we ought not to interfere. No motive is shown for the witnesses to come forward and accused innocent persons.
7. For these reasons we dismiss the appeals and confirm the conviction and sentence.