The interpretation of key legal provisions in the Indian Penal Code, including the definition of 'forced' and 'seduced' in Section 366, and the admissibility of oral evidence, influenced the court's decision in upholding the appellant's conviction.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant Profulla Kumar Bose has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Sylhet u/s 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 Sections 366, 368 and 376, I.P.C. The jury were unanimous in their verdict. They found the appellant not guilty u/s 376, I.P.C. They held that he was guilty u/s 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 u/s 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 20th 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 23rd 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 23rd March 1923, as already stated, the usual investigation by the police followed, and a charge sheet was submitted against the. appellant on 10th June 1924. The appellant, however, could not be arrested then. He eventually surrendered on 21st 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.

4. It has been urged in the first place that the learned Judge has not correctly explained the offence, punishable u/s 366, I.P.C. It has been argued that the expression in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse" has been wrongfully explained. The contention is that the learned Judge wrongly explained the two words 'forced' and 'seduced.' As regards the word 'forced' the learned Judge said as follows:

Force implies not merely physical force but also the force of circumstances. For instance, a girl who has been kidnapped from her father's house may be placed in such circumstances that she has no option but to submit to illicit intercourse. For instance, if she was entirely in the power of her kidnappers or abductors, her consent might be nothing more than a mere submission to their will.

5. It is contended that this explanation of the word 'forced' goes far beyond the definition given in Section 349, I.P.C. This argument overlooks that the definition that is given is not the meaning of the verb 'force' but of the expression 'to use force.' In our opinion there is no reason to suppose that the word 'forced' as used in Section 366, I.P.C., was not used in its ordinary dictionary sense which would include forced by stress of circumstances. Assuming, how