CHAMUDDIN SARDAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, a rule was issued to show cause why the convictions and sentences passed upon the petitioners under Section 366, I. P. C., should not be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge was asked to submit his explanation of a statement made by him in para. 3 of his judgment to this effect: "It has not been contended that there was any misdirection or non-- direction on points of law" and with special reference to para. 2 of the petition in revision in which a number of points were specified, which had been pressed upon the attention of the learned Judge on behalf of the accused. The first of these points was that the Assistant Sessions Judge, when charging the jury, had failed to direct them on the question of necessity of corroboration of the girl's evidence; further, that the Assistant Sessions Judge had failed to direct the attention of the jury to certain evidence given by the girl to the effect that she had not objected to going with the two accused, which was obviously very material upon the question of abduction. There were other points referred to in the petition with which it is not necessary to me to deal. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have misunderstood the direction given by this Court, because in his explanation he says that:

(2.) As there is ample corroboration (for what it is worth) of the girl's evidence, the question of the corroboration of the girl's evidence does not arise as a point of law.

(3.) Then he refers to certain evidence which, in our opinion, does not amount to the kind of corroboration required by law. The point to which we desired to draw the learned Judge's attention was that if the Assistant Sessions Judge had failed to direct the jury on the question of the necessity of corroboration and had failed to warn them about the danger of convicting the accused on the girl's evidence alone, in sexual cases such as this, that was a non-direction which vitiated the trial. It seems clear, therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of the girl to which our attention has been drawn and the charge to the jury, that the statement in para. 3 of the learned Sessions Judge's judgment was erroneous, because it had been clearly contended before him that there was misdirection and non--direction on points of law, namely, the failure of the learned Judge to give the jury the necessary caution which has been referred to by this Court on many occasions and is specifically stated in Nur Ahmed V/s. Emperor 1934 Cal 7. The headnote of that case states that it is extremely dangerous and permissible only in exceptional cases to convict a man of a sexual offence on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant. The rule must be properly emphasised in the charge to the jury. It is unnecessary to repeat all that was said on that occasion, except to say that the Judge should point out to the jury that they are entitled, if they please, to convict the accused upon the uncorroborated testimony of the girl, but that it is dangerous to do so in cases dealing with sexual offences such as rape, abduction and similar cases, and that only in exceptional cases should they convict upon the uncorroborated testimony of the girl.