MAMMOOTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was the 1st accused at the trial, has been convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment tor three years. His fellow accused, accused 2 and 3, who were charged with abetment of this offence have been acquitted, and against their acquittal no appeal has been preferred. We might therefore ignore them altogether.

(2.) P. W. 1, the alleged victim, a married Hindu girl of the Karuvan community, was living under the care and protection of her parents, P. Ws. 3 and 4, in the village of Tholpatti in the Wynad Taluk where they had settled. According to the prosecution, she was, at the time of the occurrence, just below the age of 17. The appellant, a Muslim bachelor of Kadambur near Cannanore, aged about 22, was running a small shop at Tholpatti within about 25 or 30 feet of P. W. 1's house and was living in the same building. He and P. W. 1 became acquainted, and in the absence of her parents and of her uncle, P. W. 2 (who also was living in the house, P. W. 3 in fact being often absent for long periods working in other places) they used to meet frequently, and, according to P. W. 1, the appellant used to make overtures to her (which she virtuously resisted) and ask her to be his wife after conversion to Islam. On the night of 29th March, 1956, P. W. 1 left her house during her father's absence at some other place eluding the other inmates, P. Ws. 2 and 4. Then, accompanied by the appellant, she went to a place called Kuttam in Coorg and from there by bus the next morning to Virajpet where she was kept in a Muslim house. The following day (31-3-1956) she went with the appellant to Tellicherry and from there by train to Kozhikode where she was kept for three days in a place where conversions are made. Then, on 3-1-1956, they went to the appellant's house in Kadambur near Cannanore, and, later in the day, they came out of the house and went to the bus stand four miles away and boarded a bus for Cannanore. When P. W. 1 went to the appellant's house, she was dressed in Hindu fashion but she emerged dressed in Muslim fashion, and this roused the suspicion of two neighbours, P. Ws. 9 and 10, who followed the couple (who according to them were accompanied by the two acquitted accused) boarded the bus, questioned P. W. 1 and the appellant and ascertained the facts, and when the bus stopped at the police station at Cannanore, went and reported the matter to the Sub-Inspector, P. W. 13, who detained P. W. 1 and the three accused and took cognisance of the case on the statement, Ext. P-6 recorded from P. W. 9. The case was then transferred to the Manantoddy Police Station within the limits of which the offence took place, and where P. W. 2, who along with P. Ws. 3 and 4, had been searching in vain for the girl, went on 5-4-1956 on learning that the girl was there and made a statement which, though shut out by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has nevertheless been received in evidence and marked as Ext. P 1. Nothing however turns on this document.

(3.) Pw. 1's evidence at the trial was that on the night in question the appellant came and knocked at her door, that she asked who it was and on learning that it was the appellant, opened the door and went out unnoticed by her mother and uncle. When she came out, the appellant, helped by the two acquitted accused, dragged her away by force, silenced her by threats, and took her to the several places mentioned until she was rescued by the police. There is no other evidence on this aspect of the case apart from the evidence of the next door neighbour Pw. 5 who has said that at about one in the morning he found the appellant and the two acquitted accused hanging round Pw. 1's house and that when he questioned them the appellant replied that they were waiting for somebody.