KSHETRIMAYUM RAGHU SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Kshetrimayum Raghu Singh of Singjamei Kshetri Leikai and Leisangthem Ibopishak Singh of Singjamei Leisangthem Leikai, against their conviction under Section 366 I. P.C. and sentences that should undergo R. I. for 3 years and 2 years respectively.

(2.) THE appellants and one Maibam Bheigya Singh were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, for an offence under Section 366 I. P.C. The first appellant Raghu Singh was also further charged under Section 376 I. P.C. The case of the prosecution is that in the early hours of 27.10.1962 when Moirangthem Ningol Rani Devi (P. W. 6) came out of her house in Kwakeithel, the appellants and some others falsely represented to her that her lover Khumbongmayum Bali Singh (P. W. 2) was waiting for her and thus induced her by deceitful means to go with them with intent that she might be compelled to marry the appellant Raghu Singh against her will or that she might be seduced or forced to have illicit intercourse with him and that when P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) hesitated to go with them, they caught hold of her and gagged her mouth. It is also the case of the prosecution that they took her to Ningomthongjao, Langthabal and lastly to Basikhong, that on the information given to the Police Station, Imphal, on 28.10.1962 by P. W. 4 (Moirangthem Nabakishore Singh), the elder brother of the victim, the Police rescued the girl and arrested the second appellant Ibopishak Singh on 30.10.1962, that the first appellant Raghu Singh absconded and that he was arrested on 18.12.1962. After the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi), the victim was more than 14 years of age and that the charge under Section 376 I. P.C. was not made out. He convicted the appellants under Section 366 I. P.C. on the ground that they abducted P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) with intent to seduce her to have illicit intercourse with the first appellant, Raghu Singh and sentenced the first appellant to undergo R. I. for 3 years and the second appellant to undergo R. I. for 2 years and acquitted the first appellant of the offence under Section 376 I. P.C. He acquitted the other accused Bheigya Singh.

(3.) IN Manipur State there in no offence of rape under Section 375(5) I. P.C. unless the girl is 14 years or less in age. In the present case the learned Additional Sessions Judge found on the evidence that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was aged 15 or 16 years at the time of the occurrence. This finding was not challenged in the appeal. So, the question for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants are guilty of the offence of abduction under Section 366 I. P.C. The evidence of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) the victim is that she was in love with P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) that the appellants are the friends of P. W. 2 (Bali Singh), that 27.10.1962 was fixed as the date for her elopment with P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) and that the said date was fixed with the knowledge of the first appellant (Raghu Singh). She further deposed that in the early hours of 27.10.1962, the appellants and some others forcibly took her away from the gate of her house by falsely telling her that they were taking her to P. W. 2 (Bali Singh), but that P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) was nowhere, that she was confined in several houses in different villages, namely, Ningomthongjao, Langthabal and Basikhong, that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) had sexual intercourse with her 3 times on 2 days by threatening her and that she was ultimately rescued by the Police on 30.12.1962. Her evidence shows that she did not raise any alarm but that she was a willing party to the elopment. But, her conduct in not raising any alarm is not inconsistent with her evidence that she was under the impression that she was being taken to her lover P. W. 2 (Bali Singh).