CHATHAN KUNJUKUNJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the accused in S. C. 63 of 1956 on the file of the Quilon Sessions Court, against his conviction under S.365, I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years.

(2.) Nandini Amma, the girl in question belongs to the Nair Community and was living with her father Pw. 1 and mother Pw. 6 in their house in Soornad Village. The accused Chathan Kunjukunju is a Pulaya aged about 26 and living in the same village, about a mile away. He had married in his community and had an issue by the marriage. His business consisted of selling song books and he knew how to sing. His uncle was residing in the house adjoining that of Pw. 1 and this apparently had given him opportunity to get acquainted with Pw. 5. According to the Prosecution on the night of 13-10-1955 corresponding to 27-2-1931 at about 10 p.m., Pw. 5 got out of the House to answer calls of nature and then the accused and his brother Kumaran together caught hold of her and by force and stealth took her away to the accuseds house. The accused subsequently took Pw. 5 along with him, to various places travelling only by night and on 27-10-1955 got up a registered agreement of marriage with her, vide Ext. D-2 at the Soornad Sub-Registry Office. Meanwhile, Pw. 1 made complaints to the Panchayat and the Police but without result. He then filed complaint on 24-11-1955 Ext. P1, before the Kunnathur First Class Magistrate. The police soon after secured Pw. 5 from the accuseds house and in due course she was entrusted back to Pw. 1. The rase was since then transferred to the District Magistrate (Judicial), Quilon for expeditious trial. After preliminary enquiry the District Magistrate discharged the accuseds brother and committed the accused alone to the Sessions Court of Quilon for the offences under S.363 and 366, I. P. C.

(3.) Before the committing Magistrates Court, the accused had pleaded that Pw. 5 had been intimate with him even during the five years before the occurrence, and they had in fact been living in his house as husband and wife for the three months prior to 27-10-1955. On the night in question he had not taken Pw. 5 by force or stealth as alleged; she alone had voluntarily left with him. Those pleas he reiterated before the court below. He further denied that Pw. 5 had become a major at the date of the incident.