The judgment establishes the importance of corroboration in cases of illicit intercourse and affirms the limited scope of appellate review in jury verdicts.

JUDGMENT

M.C. Ghose, J. - This is an appeal by three men who have been convicted under Sections 366, 342 and 457, I.P.C. and sentenced in all to rigorous imprisonment for four years and three months each. The prosecution case is that in the night of 26th March 1937, Lakmi Moni Dasi, a young woman, P. W. 5, was sleeping in a hut in her father's house. Her brother Nilmony Roy, P. W. 1, a youth of 18 was sleeping on the outer verandah. The door of the hut in which the young woman slept was locked from outside. Her parents had gone away to attend a feast in another place. At about 1 A. M., she woke up when some body was tying her mouth. She raised an alarm and cried out but the three appellants took her out of a window, 18" x 18", which they had opened out. They dragged her out of the room, took her to a field and there they ravished her one after the other, and they took her to a house where a niece of one of the appellants guarded her. She was there till 4 P. M. the next afternoon when the police came and recovered her.

2. The story of her father is that on returning home in course of the night he found the girl missing and heard the story from his son and told the village chowkidar and made a search for the girl during the night and in the morning he and the chowkidar went to the police station which is about a mile distant and was quickly followed by the son Nilmony. The police took the first information as stated by Nilmony and made an investigation and sent up the three accused.

3. The defence of the accused men was that they did not commit any of the alleged acts, and that they were made accused by the enmity of the police officer. In cross-examination, it was brought out that the girl was not quite pure; that she did not live with her husband but chose to live with her parents and that she had been seduced by a man named Sattar of the village, and that on the evening in question, her parents while going out put her into a room and locked the door from outside. Apparently, her parents feared that she might elope with somebody. It was also brought out that she was carried out not through the door but through a small window of about 18" x 18" and that when rescued she was found with a girl and not with any man who guarded her.

4. The case was tried in the Court of the Second Assistant Sessions Judge of Howrah by a jury of five. The accused men were charged with binding the young man Nilmony on the verandah. Upon that they were charged u/s 342, I.P.C. The jury unanimously found the three accused guilty u/s 342 of the Code. As regards their offence against the young woman, they were charged in the alternative with kidnapping and abduction with intent to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse. The jury by a majority of four to one found the accused men not guilty of kidnapping and by a majority of four to one found them guilty of abduction u/s 366, I.P.C. The jury by a verdict of 3 to 2 found the accused men not guilty u/s 376, I.P.C.

5. The learned Counsel appearing in the case has taken us carefully through the charge. The first point taken is that the learned Judge committed a misdirection in explaining the admissibility of the first information report Ex. 2 in the evidence. This document was recorded by the police officer as given by Nilmony. The defence case was that this was not the earliest information given to the police; that an earlier information had been given by the father of the girl which, according to the evidence of two witnesses, had been taken by the Police Sub-Inspector. But, the police officer said that he heard the father but did not take down any statement from him, and that soon after the father the young man appeared and he took the information from him. When Ex. 2 was offered as evidence by the prosecution the admissibility was opposed by the defence. The trial Judge accepted it in evidence. In this he commithed no error. It was his duty to decide on the argument of the two sides and decide in the way he