EMPEROR Vs. ABDUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant tinder Section 366, read with Section 109, of the Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. Along with the appellant two other persons, viz., Yusuf and Haidar Bakhsh, were put on their trial under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code; but have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge for reasons given in his judgement. The charge framed against the appellant by the committing Magistrate ran in the following terms, viz.

(2.) That you on or about the 21st day of October, 1915, at Dehra Dun, instigated Haidar and Yusuf, accused, to kidnap Musammat Khatun in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, which offence was committed in consequence of your abetment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 366/109 of the Indian Penal Code and within the oognizance of the Court of Session.

(3.) Musammat Khatun, whose age has been found to have been under sixteen years was, as found by the learned Sessions Judge, the wife of one Sharif Ahmad and, at the time the offence has been said to have been committed, was living with her husband at Dehra Dun. The other two accused persons, viz., Haidar and Yusuf, are related to Sharif Ahmad who has stated that they are the sons of the foster-brother of his father. Musammat Azizan, whose name figures in the evidence, is the wife of Haidar. Sharif Ahmad about this time was out of employment and was maintaining himself by bringing fuel or wood from the jungle for sale in the town. On the day following the Bakr Id, Sharif Ahmad left his house as usual in the morning for the jungle, and on returning home found that the outer door of his house was looked up and his wife away from the house. He made inquiries about her from the neighbours, but could find no trace of her for several days. I will leave Sharif Ahmad s story here and come at once to the account given by Musammat Khatun of the circumstances under which she left her husband s house. The day after the Bakr Id, at about 1 p.m. when she was alone in the house, Haidar and Yusuf came to her and told her that her brother-in-law (namely, her sister s husband) had come and had called her as her sister was very ill. Abdur Rahman is the name of the brother-in-law. He is, however, a person other than Abdur Rahman the accused, who is a stranger, and not related to the family of Musammat Khatun in any away. She demurred to going before the return of her husband, but on being pressed to do so by Haidar and Yusuf, she left with them after locking the outer door of her house and followed them to their house. There she did not find her sister s husband who, she was told, was coming by the evening train, she asked them to escort her back to her husband s house. They said they had then to go to the bungalow of the person in whose service they were, and that they would convey her back in the evening to her house and they left her in the house.