AKSHAY KUMAR MAITI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10 June, in the early hours of the morning, two girls Jaba aged 16 or 17, and Charu aged 18 or 19, the sister and cousin respectively of the complainant Mihi Lal, and under his care on behalf of their husbands, are alleged to have been abducted by the accused. Sova is a sister of Bepin, and mistress of one Nogen. Akshay is a fellow-worker of Nogen. Bepin was priest in the house-holds of both girls parents and officiated at their marriages. Sova induced the girls to leave home on the pretext of taking them on a pilgrimage bo the Ganges. Later they were joined by Bepin, Akshay and another. Eventually they reached Calcutta, and from there Akshay took them by train to Khardah, and lodged them with a prostitute named Suro Bala. Then Akshay went away for three or four days, and returned with Bepin, and each girl was ravished by one of the two accused and deprived of their ornaments. They complained to Suro Bala about the loss and she informed one Kali Pado Basu, who got the ornaments back from Akshay, wrote to their parents, and eventually took them home.

(2.) On 30 June, with the consent of their husbands, Mihi Lal lodged a complaint in Court. The three accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Howrah and a jury who convicted them of offences under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, with respect to each of the girls, and they were sentenced each to one year's imprisonment for each offence to run concurrently. All of them were acquitted under Secs.120-B, 366, 373 and 497 under which sections also they had been charged.

(3.) The defence was that neither of the girls was married, that the accused had nothing to do with the alleged incident, that they had been implicated falsely after long delay as a result of a conspiracy against Nagen, that the girls were not sound in morals, had eloped with some one, and came home because they got disgusted with the life when they began to be molested by goondas. The complainant explained the delay from 10 to 30 June, in lodging the complaint, by saying that he was advised not to do so until the girls had been recovered, and that he had to consult their husbands first. The evidence cannot be called satisfactory, and the Judge does not appear to have been impressed with the veracity of the witnesses.