KHETRAMANI DASI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under Section 373, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. The girl in this case is Ranibala Dasi, who, according to the Police Surgeon, was about sixteen years old on December 2, 1921, when he gave evidence.

(2.) The first question that arises is, whether the appellant obtained, possession of her. It is suggested that she bought her, but there is no evidence of this. It is conceded, however, that the girl has been with the appellant for several years. In cross-examination some questions, were, put suggesting that the appellant was the mother of the girl, but the appellant in the course of her very lengthy written statement, made no such assertion. The, only possible conclusion is, that the girl is not the daughter of the appellant, and that the appellant obtained possession of her some ten years ago, as set out in the charge.

(3.) The next and most important question is the intention or knowledge of the appellant. Here I may mention that the learned Magistrate does not appear, to have made the mistake of thinking. that the proposed explanation was ever added to the section, whatever mat have been his impression when he framed the charge. He recognised that the onus lay on the prosecution, and, therefore, his reasoning is not vitiated by any fundamental misconception. Proof of intention or knowledge, such as are mentioned in the section, must be almost entirely a matter of inference from circumstances.