K JOGGAYYA Vs. KING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under Sections 366 and 342, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of RS. 100/- for the first offence and six months rigorous imprisonment for the second.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the appellant abducted the girl (p. W. l) while she was on her way back after purchase of paddy in Nuapali village in company with about 9 or 10 others each of whom had a bag load of paddy on the head. The accused happened to be by the side of the road when Chandramma and patty were proceeding to the aforesaid village for purchase of paddy. He also was found loitering on the road near a tank while they were returning. He came with a stick from behind the girl and pushed down the bag load of paddy from her head and forcibly carried her away in his arms lifting her body by putting one-hand under the knees and another around the neck. In this condition, he took her to some distance and then dragged her to his house through the back door and bolted the same. First of all, he took her to the house by back door then to the middle house which was then closed. Certain outsiders, being informed of the occurrence by P. ws. 3 and 4, wanted to intercede on her behalf and presuade the appellant to let her go but to no effect. Later, the village Karji was informed, who also came on the scene and repeated the same request but in vain. He then submitted his report to the Police on which the First In. formation Report was recorded. Before the Karji sent his report, the father of the girl had also come to the place on getting information from somebody whom La could not name. The girl was brought into the room at about 10.30 A.M. and was kept confined till 5 P.M. of the day when, only on the appearance of the Sub-Inspector on the spot, the door was opened and she had to come away. At the time when she was released, she was found to be perspiring, weeping and almost run down; for sometime she fainted, but her mother took her up into a relation's house where she was given some food. Later, she conducted the Sub-Inspector to the place from where she was forcibly carried away, and the paddy bag, that she had been carrying at the time, was identified, out of several other such bags belonging to her companions and was seized. The Sub-Inspector made an investigation and submitted charge-sheet. Ultimately, the appellant was put on trial and has been convicted and sentenced as above.

(3.) The evidence consists of that of the girl and her two companions, p. Ws. 3 and 4. These are the eye-witnesses. P, W. 2 is the father who came to the scene after hearing about abduction. The only inmate in the house of the accused on the date of the occurrence was his mother who has not been examined either by the prosecution or by the defence nor is it known under what circumstances she was left out. The learned Sessions Judge has believed the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 on the point of actual occurrence, namely, carrying and dragging the girl inside the house and patting her in confinement. He has believed P. w. 1 wish regard to hex story that this confinement and abduction was with the object of compelling her to marry. The evidence of witnesses, other than those mentioned above, is more or less corroborative proving the antecedent and subsequent facts which strongly probabilise the prosecution story. Mr. P. V. Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, except raising certain points does not seriously dispute the story in its broad outlines nor has he indulged, and that I think rightly, in dealing with immaterial discrepancies in the statements of the different witnesses deposing on an identical point. The points of dispute are : (i) that the girl had come to the accused's house voluntarily; (ii) assuming that she was dragged, it does not amount to an offence under a. 366, as the prosecution has failed to establish from the facts and circumstances proved that the abduction was with the intent that she may be compelled to marry the appellant against her will; it is not the prosecution case that the intention of the appellant in abducting her (p. w. l) was that she may be forced or induced to have illicit connexion; (iii) assuming her story her being lodged in a room which was bolted-to be true, it does not amount to an offence of wrongful confinement.