SHAMLAL SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two accused in this case have bean convicted of an offence under the provisions of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Coda, that is to say, abducting a woman with intent to commit rape. Each of the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years.

(2.) Now 12 points have been urged before us on behalf of the appellants. First, it is said that there has been no sufficient compliance with Section 342, of the Cr. P.C. Apparently, what happened is this that the accused were asked if they desired to make any further statement to what they had made before the Committing Magistrate and they refused to do so or to call any evidence. Now we have had occasions to point out more than once that the proper method of applying Section 342 is to bring to the attention of the accused specific matters which appear in the evidence against them and that merely questioning them generally as to whether they have anything to say or anything to add to what was said before the Committing Magistrate is not a satisfactory method of applying Section 342, and we hope that the Courts in future will bear this in mind when the time comes to question the accused under the provisions of Section 342, but we are not prepared to say that what was done in this ease necessitates a new trial.

(3.) The second point urged is that the Judge was not justified in stating to the Jury his impression of the demeanour of some of the witnesses without recording, as it is said he should have done, his views at the end of their depositions. But after all, there is really nothing in this point. The Jury saw the witnesses and it was for them to judge whether the demeanour of the witneses was such as to discredit in any way the evidence that they had given.