GHULAM HUSSAIN Vs. KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal, by special leave, from an order of the Chief Court of Sind, made in the exercise of its appellate criminal jurisdiction, summarily dismissing an appeal by the appellant from his conviction on charges of kidnapping a girl named Jasoda, aged eleven years, with intent to force her to illicit intercourse, and of raping her. The appellant was tried at the Chief Court Sessions jointly with his servant, Fatehsing, who was accused of having taken part in the kidnapping and of abetment of the rape. By a majority of 7 to 2 the jury found both the accused guilty of the offences charged against them. The learned Judge (Constantine J.) accepted the verdict and sentenced the appellant to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code on the charge of kidnapping and to eight years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 on the charge of rape, the sentences to run concurrently. He sentenced Fatehsing to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 on the charge of kidnapping and to four years rigorous imprisonment under Section 109 read with Section 376 on the charge of abetment of the rape, these sentences likewise to run concurrently. An appeal by Fatehsing to the appellate side of the Chief Court was also summarily dismissed, but he did not apply for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.

(2.) THE hearing of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant was concluded on November 30, 1949, when their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed and that they would state their reasons later. THEy now proceed to do so.

(3.) IT is beyond dispute that she had been raped and that she was bleeding profusely when she arrived at her mother's house. She did not then tell her mother what happened, but it was obvious that her condition was such that she required immediate medical attention. An ambulance was sent for and she was removed to the Civil Hospital, Karachi. She was first seen by Dr. Sobhraj, the First Assistant Surgeon at the hospital, who after a superficial examination told her mother that her daughter had been raped. Jasoda was then examined by Dr. Ansari, the medical officer on duty at the time. In his evidence Dr. Ansari stated that Jasoda had told him that she had been taken in a carriage to Singhoo Lane (which is some considerable distance from Moosa Lane) and there raped. This statement is entirely contrary to the evidence given by Jasoda, who denied ever having made such a statement.