BAL MUKUNDO SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the accused was tried in respect of unnatural offences alleged to have been committed upon three boys on three separate occasions. He was convicted by the Magistrate runder each of the charges. On appeal the convictions who regard to two of the boys were set aside, and the third conviction with regard to one Shib Nath Was upheld.

(2.) The offence against Shib Nath was to have been committed on March 12. The accused used to occupy a couple of rooms on the ground floor of premises No. 7, Paddapukur Road. Shib Nath had occasion to visit some one else in these premises and as he was going past the room Occupied by the accused, he was invited to enter it. A friend of his was already in the room. The accused gave Shib Nath some pan and some intoxicating drink. Later on Shib Nath felt too intoxicated to leave and stayed there for the night after having his meal with the accused. They occupied Separate rooms, but in the night it is alleged that the accused came to his bed and proposed carnal intercourse with him. Shib Nath refused, but he was overpowered, and this offence was committed. Shib Nath alleged that he was under the influence of drink and could not offer much resistence, but he offered as much as he could. No injuries were found upon him. The cloth which, it is alleged, the accused wiped himself with, was examined by the Chemical Examiner without result.

(3.) The next morning, Shib Nath reported the matter to a man named Karr who took him to the Police Station where he made a complaint against the accused. Unfortunately, Mr. Karr's evidence cannot be referred to, because he could not be produced for cross-examination. The learned Judge disbelieved the story of both the other boys, mainly upon the ground that they made no complaint to any one until they were accosted by the Police in connection with Shib Nath's case. The learned Magistrate found as a fact that Shib-Nath was a perfectly willing party-and was lured by the prospect of monetary payment otherwise he could nut have so readily consented to dine and stay the night in a stranger's house. Further, he did not straggle otherwise there would have been injuries upon his person. He did not feel any pain or inconvenience while walking after the incident. It is doubtful whether, upon the evidence, the learned Magistrate was justified in drawing the inference that Shib Nath was a consenting party especially having regard to his allegation that he was intoxicated with drink supplied by the accused.