PRAFULLA KUMAR BOSE Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Profulla Kumar Bose has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Sylhet under Section 366, I.P.C., and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,200, or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months more. The fine has been ordered to be paid as compensation; to the father of the girl in respect of whom the offence has been found to have been committed. The trial was held with the aid of a jury on charges under Secs.366, 368 and 376, I.P.C. The jury were unanimous in their verdict. They found the appellant not guilty under Section 376, I.P.C. They held that he was guilty under Section 366, LP. C, finding that-the girl had been kidnapped, the seduction having taken place before the girl left her father's place They held that in the circumstances the offence under Section 368, I.P.C., did not arise.

(2.) The story needs no recounting. It is set out in all its harrowing details in the voluminous charge which the learned Judge delivered and which purports to deal with every point in controversy with all the evidence bearing on it and from all conceivable view points. Put in a nutshell, the story is that the appellant who was an Assistant Surgeon at Sunamgunge in the District of Sylhet, taking advantage of his position as the next door neighbour, and abusing the confidence that was reposed on him as the medical attendant of the girl who was placed under his treatment and which enabled him to have almost free access into the house wherein the girl lived, kidnapped or abducted the girl on or about 20 August 1920, and removed her from place to place keeping her concealed to avoid detection till the girl was recovered at a place called Khalsini, near Chandranagore on 23 March 1923. The story is that in the meantime the girl gave birth to a child, which however died. Information of the girl having left her father's house was given to the police almost simultaneously with her disappearance. The appellant remained at Sunamgunge till April 1921, presumably to keep up appearances. Subsequently, some time in 1922, the father on receipt of some information against the appellant applied for and obtained warrant for his arrest and search warrant for the production of the girl. After the girl was recovered, on 23 March 1923, as already stated, the usual investigation by the police followed, and a charge sheet was submitted against the. appellant on 10 June 1924. The appellant, however, could not be arrested then. He eventually surrendered on 21 Deoemberl927.

(3.) In this appeal which the appellant has filed to this Court from his conviction and sentence, various grounds have been taken which we propose to deal with one by one.