TOBARAK MONDAL Vs. KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by one Tobarak Mandal who was tried by a learned Sessions Judge and a jury upon a charge Under Section 366, Penal Code. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of an offence under that section and the learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to a term of five years' rigorous imprisonment. From that conviction and sentence the present t )peal has been preferred. The charge was that Tobarak Mandal had abducted a young married woman named Mentu Daaai the daughter of the complainant Jatil Mehna, from the house of Jatil Mehna in village Hariramput;.

(2.) It appears that on Ashar 15 last Mentu Dasai was staying at the houae of her father and at about Candle-light time she went out to a tank called Bodipukur which was not far from the house of the complainant to ease herself, There it is suggested that she was abducted by the appellant with intent that she should be compelled to marry him against her will or she might be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. It is said by the prosecution that Tobarak Mandal was accompanied by his cousina Rustom and Sabu and when they found the young woman at the tank she was seized and gagged and forcibly dragged away to the house of Sabu where she was kept confined until the following night. She was then taken to the village of Kanpur by Tobarak Mondal and Sabu and there kept confined for ten days. It is said that during the period of her confinement Tobarak threatened and cajoled Mentu Dassi and tried to persuade her to embrace Islam and marry him, though, it is said, Tobarak Mandal well knew that the young girl was married and that her husband was alive. She did not, however, yield to these threats or inducements and finally after being confined for about ten days she managed to make good her escape and returned home to the house of her father. Her father in the meantime had made a complaint, but no steps had been taken as a result of it. When the girl appeared she was produced before the Court by the complainant where she was examined and eventually proceedings were commenced against the appellant and Sabu, but the appellant only was committed for trial.

(3.) Mr. Sudhansu Mukherjee on behalf of the appellant has contended that the verdict of the jury is vitiated by reason of the admission of inadmissible evidence. The girl was abducted, as I;have said, on Ashar 13 which corresponds to 29th June 1948. She was kept confined for about ten days when she returned to her father's house. Her father Jatil gave evidence and he stated that when the girl returned she told him what had happened and the statement of the girl to her father corresponded very closely to the evidence which she gave in the Sessions Court.