ILU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The abovenamed four appellants were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Hooghly sitting with a jury on charges under Sub-section 344 and 366, I. P. C. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty and the learned Judge agreeing has convicted them as above and sentenced the appellant Abdul Latif to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and each of the other appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and six months. The case for the prosecution shortly stated is as follows: The appellants are residents of Bagnan P. S. Polba in the District of Hooghly. One Kusum Bala Dasi, a woman aged 16 or 17 years who is P.W. 2 in the case was living at the time of the occurrence in the house of her brother Gokul P. W. 10. Her husband Keshab P. W. 8 was also living with her in the same house but at the time of the occurrence he was away. One day in Agrahayan 1339 B. S. at about 10 A. M. Kusum carried some food to the field where Gokul was working. While returning the woman was way laid by these four appellants who gagged her and carried her off by force to the house of the appellant Abdul Latif.

(2.) There it was alleged, she was kept wrongfully confined for about 8 months and during this time Abdul Latif had sexual intercourse with her. In Sraban 1340 B. S. she was taken by these appellants to Syeduddin Ahmed, S. I. Jogachia in the District of Howrah and in the thana she was wrongfully confined for about 10 days. The Secretary of the Arya Samaj, Calcutta, got information about the matter and deputed his durwan Joy Narain Singh, P. W. 1, to make inquiries. He went to Jogachia dressed as a hawker and had an interview with the woman in the thana house of the Sub-Inspector Jogachia. Then he made more inquiries and ultimately filed a petition of complaint on 9 August 1933. The husband Keshab also filed a petition of complaint on 31 August. Meanwhile it appears, in April 1933, that is to say during the period of the alleged confinement in Abdul Latif's house the woman's brother Gokul was arrested on a charge of dacoity and subsequently he was tried and convicted in a proceeding Under Section 110, Criminal P. C, in consequence of which he was sent to jail. On 27 April Suresh Boy, Sub-Inspector of Polba P. S., who is Court witness 2, held an investigation in connexion with the dacoity case and examined the girl whom he found living in a chalaghar in the Musalman quarter. It appears that later there was an information brought to the police that the girl had attempted to commit suicide and also that she had been abducted.

(3.) It may be that Gokul said this to a police officer while in jail. At any rate, there is no doubt that Bhababhim Singh, A. S. I., Dadpur outpost, under Polba P. S. came to the village and recorded the statement of the girl on 17 June which is Ex. 4, and he submitted a report on 18 June following, which is Ex. 3. In that statement the girl is reported to have said that she has separated from her husband and brother and was living in her own hut on the bank of Bhairabipara tank and according to the A. S. I. she was there living as a prostitute. On the complaint filed by Joy Narayan P. W. 1, a warrant for the production of the girl was issued and she was brought from Jogachia thana. It was reported by the Circle Inspector Court witness, that the girl told him that she had come to Jogachia Thana to work as a maid-servant. The defence is that there is a daladali in the village and that the case is the outcome of enmity, the men of the party of Mr. Alani having instituted the case through the agency of Joy Narayan Singh. Mr. Pugh for the appellants has contended that the learned Judge's charge to the jury is open to serious objection because it is meagre and inadequate, their being no proper sifting of the evidence, which again is inherently improbable and full of material inconsistencies. Mr. Basu appearing for the Crown has contended that the jury having believed the evidence the matter is concluded and it is not open to this Court to interfere in appeal. Mr. Pugh has further drawn attention to a passage in the order of the learned Judge by which he sentenced the accused and it is as follows: The accused after the delivery of the verdict asks me to refer the case to the Hon ble High Court Under Section 307, Criminal P. C. But in view of the petition filed to day by the P. P., regarding the charge and the unanimous verdict of the jury, I do not think that it is; necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the Hon ble High Court.