KHIJIRUDDIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three appellants, that is to say, No. 1 Khijiruddin Sonar, No. 2, Nawabali Sheikh and No. 3, Qamruzzaman (alias Quamarulzaman.) were tried by the Sessions Judge of Rungpur with the aid of a jury. The jury were divided in the proportion of four to one. The majority convicted the appellants in respect of the charges on which they were tried, viz., Nos. 1 and 2 under Secs.364, 344 and 120-B and No. 3 under Secs.364 342 and 120-B. The learned Judge, accepting the verdict, convicted the appellants of the said offences and sentenced the Appellant No. 1 to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, and to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 344, Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run consecutively: the Appellant No. 2 to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, and to rigorous-imprisonment for one year under Section 345, Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run concurrently; and the Appellant No. 3 to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 366, Indian Penal Code and, to rigorous imprisonment for one year tinder Section 342, Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run concurrently. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 120-B, Indian Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is not necessary to set out in detail the case for the prosecution upon which the trial was held; for it is to be found narrated in sufficient detail in the learned Judge's charge to the jury. Shortly stated, the prosecution case was that a girl Suhasini was abducted by the first two appellants some time in February 1923 from Gaibandha, where she used to reside with her parents; that thereafter she managed to escape from the custody of the Appellant No. 1 some time in March 1923, when she was again abducted by the Appellant No. 1 from a railway station called Trimohini. After the second abduction, the case for the prosecution is the girl remained with the Appellant No. 1 for about a year, roughly speaking from March 1923 till March 1924. The prosecution case further is that after she had succeeded in escaping from the custody of the Appellant No. 1 in March 1924 she was again abducted at Gaibandha by the three appellants acting in conspiracy with each other. She was thereafter detained, according to the case for the prosecution, in the house of the Appellant No. 3 for about a day where- from she was removed to the house of the Appellant No. 1. where she was detained for a period over ten days According to the prosecution case she was recovered from the house of Appellant No. 1 in execution of a warrant issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Gaibandha who "had in the meantime received an anonymous letter informing him about the abduction. She is said to have been recovered as aforesaid on the 6 of April, 1924.

(3.) The defences of the three appellants are not exactly the same. But it is unnecessary to set out the defences here, because the learned Judge in his charge-to the jury has given a substantially correct synopsis of the different defences of the three appellants.