MOHIUDDIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In appeal 2 of 1930 the appellant is one Mohiuddin Ahmed and in appeal 3 of 1930 the appellant is one Hemayetuddin Mukhtear. They have been found guilty by the jury in the proportion of 3 to 2 in manner following: the accused Mohiuddin and the accused Hemayetuddin have both been found guilty under Section 120-B read with Section 366, I.P.C., the accused Mohiuddin guilty under Secs.366 and 376, I.P.C. and the accused Hemayetuddin guilty under Section 366/114 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, agreeing with the verdict of the jury, has convicted both the accused under the sections referred to above and he has sentenced them as follows the accused Mohiuddin to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years on each of the three charges, namely under Secs.366 and 376 (two counts) and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months under Sections 120-B/366, I.P.C. the sentences to run concurrently: the accused Hemayetuddin to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months on each charge under Secs.120-B/366 and 366/114, I.P.C., the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) Against this conviction and sentence the above appeals have been preferred to this Court. They have been separately argued before us by Mr. Bagram and Mr. Mingail on behalf of the accused Mohiuddin and by Mr. Gregory on behalf of the accused Hemayetuddin and the main point that has been argued in these appeals is that the selection and empanelment of the jury in this case were irregular and unwarranted by law. Various other points were taken and in order to understand these other points, which will be indicated later on, it is necessary to set out the facts shortly.

(3.) Babu Charu Chandra Roy is a pleader at present, practising at Barisal. From September 1928 to 22 December, 1928 he used to occupy a house at Barisal which was next door to the house of a Deputy Magistrate named Moulvi Panaulla. With him were his wife and his daughter named Sovana, an unmarried girl aged about 13 years and odd months. The adjoining house which was occupied as stated above by Moulvi Panaulla, was only a few cubits off. Moulvi Panaulla had with him his wife named Latifa, and there used to live in Moulvi Panaulla's house the accused Mohiuddin who is said to be a cousin of Latifa. It is stated that Latifa, who is a young lady aged about 16 or 17 years, used to come to Babu Charu Chandra Roy's house and visit the latter's wife and daughter and Sovana used to visit Latifa at the latter's house. The ladies of the two houses apparently became very friendly and Sovana was introduced by Latifa to Mohiuddin and to one Golapjan who is Moulvi Panaulla's sister-in-law. On one occasion Mohiuddin, Latifa and Golapjan took Sovana to see an exhibition which was being held in Barisal. On two other occasions these four persons went to a local theatre in the evenings; all four of them going in the same carriage, They returned from the theatre shortly after midnight. It is said that on all these occasions Sovana had her mother's permission to go with Mohiuddin and his party. Be that as may, Mohiuddin and Sovana fell in love with each other and there followed exchange of letters between Sovana and Mohiuddin. These letters, at any rate, a large number of them, are exhibits in this case and have been marked Z. The letters written by Sovana are addressed "Praner Mohi," "Praner Swami" and in such like terms and they breathe ardent and passionate love. Some of these letters ultimately came to the knowledge of Sovana's father: but before that he had apparently noticed that Mohiuddin was paying undesirable attentions to his daughter Sovana. He thereupon brought the matter to the notice of Moulvi Panaullah and asked him to send Mohiuddin away.