DALIP SINGH Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lal Singh, Dalip Singh, Hayat Singh and Gopal Singh were prosecuted for having abducted Mt. Chanchari with intent to compel her or knowing it to be likely that she .would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse; Dalip Singh was further prosecuted for having taken her away and detaining her at hid house at Bhainskhal with a like intent; Hayat Singh was further prosecuted for having robbed Alam Singh of Rs. 120. The offences mentioned in the charge against them were under Sections 366 and 408, Penal Code, in the case of all and Section 392, Penal Code, in the case of Hayat Singh only. All these accused have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of offences under Section 366, Penal Code, Hayat Singh has been acquitted of the offence under a. 892, Penal Code All the accused except Dalip Singh, have been acquitted of the offence under Section 498, Penal Code. Dalip Singh alone has been convicted for an offence under B. 498, Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Dalip Singh has come up in appeal to this Court.

(2.) The prosecution story was as follows: Mt. Chanchari, prosecution witness 2, is a young Bhotiya woman aged about 20. She was married several years ago to one Inder Singh. While Inder Singh was carrying on a shop at Joshi-math his family used to live at village Bhagoli in the district Garhwal. About the middle of Phagun, '1945, Inder Singh's mother sent her sister's son Alam Singh along with Alam Singh's son and Mt. Chanchari and a daughter-in-law of Alam Singh, a deaf and dumb woman called Mt. Lati, and two other children to a village of the name of Garur to buy salt and gur. These persons camped at a place called Kulaun in Almora district on their way to Garur, The party was camping in one of the huts about half a mile from the village. The women were inside the hut and Alam Singh and pack animals were outside, Hayat Singh accused came over to the but with a gun in his hands and asked Alam Singh whether they had certain woollen articles, such as Thulmas, Chutkas and Gudmas for sale. Alam Singh replied that they had not got those articles. Thereafter at about midnight 10 or 12 men descended on the hut where Alam Singh and party were staying. Some of them held Alam Singh, who was outside the hut, and some of them carried off Mt. Chanchari and Mt. Lati by force. They, however, released Mfc. Lati soon after as she was not attractive at all and was deaf and dumb, and was considered not worth the trouble of a forcible abduction. They, however, took away Mt, Chanchari, a woman of prepossessing appearance. Hayat Singh also took the opportunity of robbing Alam Singh of a sum of Rs. 120. Alam Singh went a little distance after the miscreants, but had to return back on being threatend by them. Then Alam Singh returned to Garhwal without going to Garur and in due course Inder Singh was in-formed at Joshimath of what had happened. The four accused were among the 10 or 12 men who had taken part in the incident. According to Mt. Chanehari the four accused and one Chintua carried her between them to a place culled Gana Mungari. There Dalip Singh disposed of the others by giving them Rs, 100. That night Mt. Chanchari stopped at Gana Mungari at the house of one Mohan Singh and Dalip Singh stopped in another house in the same village. Mt Chanchari stopped there for two nights and Dalip Singh promised to provide her with food and clothes. The next day they moved on to Kapkot and there Dalip Singh made the woman change the clothes which she had been wearing and gave her a chadar and a petticoat to wear. From there Dalip Singh took her to Shyamadhura and from that place to his house in Bhainskhal.

(3.) Upon Inder Singh making a report to the police, the police arrived at Bhamskhal on 27th March. There Mt. Chanchari was found in the house of Dalip Singh with Dalip Singh; there was no one elae in the house. Dalip Singh was arrested and later the other accused were also arrested; and then they were prosecuted as stated above. Mt. Chanchari, Alam Singh,, Padam Singh and Gaje Singh, the four eye-witnesses, were produced by the prosecution in support of its case. The other witnesses produced were more or less formal or proved attendant circumstances. Of these four witnesses, Gaje Singh did not identify any of the accused. His evidence was, therefore, practically useless. As the other three accused have been acquitted I need not consider their case.