Gajo Singh and Others vs Emperor

Mullick, J.—This application for revision arises, out of the alleged kidnapping of Musammat Bhukni, a Babkan girl, aged 11 or 12 year, on the 15th April last. It is alleged that the accused, Gajo Singh, Ramtahal Singh, Kuer Singh, Sahu Singh and Baso Singh, seized her on the bank of the river Chandail in her village where she had been taken to have a bath in connection with the Mangrore ceremony for her approaching meaning with one Lalbehari of her village which was to take place on the following Monday. She was then carried across the river and the above accused were joined by Chako Singh, Dhako Singh and Jamuna Singh of Mauza Pine. It is Alleged that the intension of her assailants was to marry her to Chako Singh. Information was give that night by her brother, Sheodhari, to the Police, Mouza Pine was surrounded by the Police force on the following morning. Bhukni is said to have been detained by her assailants in various places in Mauza Pine till early on Monday morning when she was taken back to her village and left there. Her marriage with Lalbehari was celebrated, as arranged, pa the evening of Monday the 17th.

The Assistant Sessions Judge, agreeing with the unanimous verdict of the Jury, has found the first set of accused guilty under Sections 147 363 and 363 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them under sec ions 363 and 363 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code, to rigorous imprisonment for two years each. The three accused in the second set have been sentenced u/s 363read with Sections 114 and 368 Indian Penal Code, to rigorous imprisonment for two years each.

There was an appeal to the Sessions Judge on the ground of misdirection. The Teamed Judge, after dealing carefully with the charges of the Assistant Sessions Judge, found that there had been no misdirection which had caused a miscarriage of justice and he has dismissed the appeal.

The present application before us is for the revision of the order of the Sessions Judge. The learned Vakil for the petitioners has taken us through the learned Assistant Sessions Judge''s charge and has characterised it as being throughout hostile to the accused. The learned Vakil has also taken exception to the manner in which the learned Judge has expressed his own opinion of the evidence for the prosecution. Now, whether the evidence has been adequately criticised by the Court must depend upon the special circumstances of each case, such as the constitution of the Jury, their intelligence and education, the elaboration with Which the case has been conducted on both sides, the skill of the defence and a variety of other circumstances. Here I find that the trial lasted ten days before a Jury of two Muhammadans and three Hindus, all of whom were apparently intelligent and educated men and some of whom were certainly acquainted with local conditions in rural districts. I cannot, after reading through the evidence and the charge, say that any matter of prime importance has been omitted. It was open to the Judge to express his own opinion of the evidence provided he cautioned the Jury that they were not bound by that opinion, and in* the present case this injuction has been carefully observed by the Assistant Sessions Judge.

I think, therefore, the application must be rejected.

I desire to observe that the learned Sessions Judge in disposing of the app4|t has carefully dealt with all the points of misdirection taken before him and that, although a motion for revision does lie against the Sessions Judge''s order, it is not the intention of the law that the motion shall be heard by us as an appeal; for if that were the case, then, there would be no object in giving a right of appeal to the Sessions Judge at all. I think all that the petitioners can claim in an application for revision in case of this kind is a right to show that the Sessions Judge has decided wrongly. They start with a heavy onus, and, approaching the case from that standpoint, I have no hesitation in rejecting the application.

The learned Vakil for the petitioners has made an appeal to us for the reduction of the sentence, but having regard to the feet that the girl belongs to the Babhan caste and that, even though she was not molested, her removal for two nights to another village and out of the custody of her guardian, is likely to cause considerble social injury, I do not think we should interfere. The object of the petitioners was to many the girl to Chako Singh, but that is not any ground for mitigation.

Kulwant Sahay, J.

I agree.