KHAZAN SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Khazan Singh, has been convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Meerut of an offence under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300. Five persona were put on their trial in the Sessions Court on a charge under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, but it was altered to one under Section 368, Indian Penal Code, in that Court as against the accused other than Nos. 1 and 2. The story for the prosecution was that Musammat Tejo was enticed away from her husband in 1931. She was then a girl of about 14, if the finding of the Assistant Sessions Judge that she was 17 when this case was brought into Court is correct. The people who were said to have enticed her on this occasion were Musammat Lachmi and Shib Sahai, and according to the evidence of the girl, Shib Sahai ill-treated her and attempted to persuade her to transfer her land to him. He afterwards took her away to the house of Hukam Singh, who was also put on his trial, where she stayed for over a year, at the end of which time Shib Sahai, Hukam Singh, Sheo Nath and the present appellant, Khazan, took her away in a motor car and left her in the house of Khazan for three months. Khazan is said to have forcibly kept her during this period "as a woman". But one day she managed to unfold her story to a girl, who wrote a letter to Ram Singh, who put the matter in the hands of the Police, and Musammat Tejo was actually recovered from the house of Khazan Singh.

(2.) Ram Singh claimed to be he brother of Musammat Tejo, but it appears in evidence that he was only a distant cousin, and he has been very prominent in the prosecution of the case. The story about the alleged abduction by Musammat Lachmi and Shib Sahai, and the alleged connection of Hukam Singh and Sheonath with the girl has been disbelieved by the Judge. He did, however, feel that Khazan Singh must be convicted on account of the fact that the girl was actually found in his possession in a room that was locked.

(3.) It will be seen that if the prosecution story, which attempts to show how the girl was enticed away from her husband and disposed of for over a year, is false, we have no reliable account of the manner in which Musammat Tejo came into the possession of Khazan Singh. His own story is that he had bought her or rather arranged to be married to her in some sort of way, and that he had arranged to pay Rs. 800, for this purpose to Ram Singh, but that as a part of this sum remained unpaid, Ram Singh had caused this case to be instituted against him. Another important circumstance that has come out in the course of the evidence is that the girl owns or owned some land, and that she has now made this over to Ram Singh. It should further be mentioned that the girl's husband did make a complaint of her disappearance in 1931 and that his position in regard to Khazan and Ram Singh is not at all clear. He gave evidence for the defence, in the course of which he stated that Ram Singh had sold Musammat Tejo to Khazan, but this is evidently only hearsay.