PANCHANAN GOGAI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in this case (Panchanan Gogai, Gopal Gohain, Mohari Ahom alias Mohari Dursa, Kan Bap Baruah, Laghona Koar, and Ratneswar Ahom) were found guilty by the jury in manner following i.e. Pachanan and Kan Bap were found guilty under Secs.328 and 366, I.P.C., Gopal and Mali Ali or Mohari under Section 366, I.P.C. and the remaining two under Section 366 read with Section 107, I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge of the Assam Valley Districts, agreeing with the verdict of the jury has sentenced the accused to undergo various terms of imprisonment.

(2.) The main point which has been argued in this appeal before us arises with reference to the evidence of one Sashi, Prabha, a girl aged about 17, who was alleged to have been abducted. The case for the prosecution, shortly stated, was as follows: It appears that the marriage of Sashi Probha with one Lokenath had been settled and the marriage was to have taken place on 6 May 1928. Her father Durga Prosad had been away from home for some time prior to the date of the occurrence hereinafter referred to. It is alleged that taking advantage of the absence of Durga Prosad, the accused Panchanan in conspiracy with the accused Kan Bap Gopal and Mohari, and with the approver, Sona Ram, abducted the girl after making her unconscious. They also administered dhatura poison to the adult members of the family. The abduction took place on the night of 27 April and the girl was removed from place to place until she was brought to the house of one Haranath who was the brother-in-law of the accused Panchanan. Haranath sent a wire on 26 May to Durga Prosad and ultimately the police recovered the girl on 29 May. Sashi Probha appeared before the Magistrate for the first time on 11 June 1928.

(3.) The passage in the learned Judge's charge to the jury, to which exception has been taken before us, runs as follows: Of course in a case of abduction, the most important witness is the abducted girl but the abducted girl in this case has retracted all that she deposed in the lower Court. But before we discuss the evidence, you should remember some dates. The occurrence took place on the night of 27 April, corresponding to 14th Baisakh. The marriage for Sashi Probha was to have been celeberated with Lokanath on 6 May i.e., 23 Baisakh. Durga Babu left this house a few days before to purchase articles for marriage and for other important business, he was to return on 29 April. The negotiations of the marriage were going on for about six months or so. The girl was recovered on 29 May; Haranath sent a wire on 26 May. She was examined by the police at Sibsagar on 30 May. After her examination, she was sent to her father's house immediately. She remained at her father's house for four or five days, after which she again came to Sibsagar, She was again brought home two or three days before her father's death which took place on 14 June. Her sister, Ratna's marriage was celebrated with Lokenath on 6 May, the date on which her marriage with Lokenath was to have been celebrated. On 11 June she was produced before the Subordinate Divisional Officer to have her statement recorded under Section 164, Criminal P.C. An Honorary Magistrate was deputed to verify the statement so recorded. Sashi Probha was examined by the Committing Magistrate on 22 August, 1928. Durga Prasad died on 14 June 1928. Sashi Probha left her father's house in the night of 4 September. While her mother and her little sister Santi and the youngest brother was alone, living, Sashi Probha was again produced before the Magistrate on 5 September 1929, the date of commitment. On that date, Panchanan was sent to hajat. Sashi Probha was allowed to go of her own free will, to the house of Panchanan. The letter Ex. 7 which goaded her to take this fatal step is dated 29 August, 1928. Sashi Probha was examined in this Court on 8 May 1929. Sashi Probha personally appeared before the Additional Judge, Mr. Mehta on 7 March 1929, to apply for bail describing herself as the wife of Pachanan Gogai. The girl has spoken in four voices. The first three statements are substantially the same. In all the statemenes, she spoke of being drugged and then carried by force in an unconscious state. All these statements have been read before you and you have also heard her deposition here. The suggestion of the defence is that what she spoke on the previous occasions were tutored and it is only here that she has spoken the real truth. It is also suggested that what she spoke to Bheduri, Kameswari and others when she was being taken from place to place were false and intended to convey wrong impression. This suggestion is made in the cross- examination to anticipate the evidence to be given by these persons. You must bear in mind the adverse comments of the defence pleader about the delay in producing her before the Magistrate and also that she did not appear before the Magistrate voluntarily. It is for you to decide in what voice she spoke the truth. The determining test should be what version has been corroborated by the independent evidence. It has been the attempt of the prosecution to prove that her first three statements have been so corroborated.