Judgement S. D KHARE. J. :- This is a Government Appeal directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur on 30th April, 1963. 2. Chaudhry Laiq Singh, his wife Sm. Ram Maya, his driver Kishun Chand and his three relations, namely, Gajendrapal Singh, Bimal Kumar and Tej Bahadur, we committed to the Court of Session, Kanpur, to stand their trial for having committed offences punishable under Sections 365/364 read with Section 149 I.P.C. All of them except Gajendrapal Singh (respondent) were further charged under Sections 147, 357/149 and 325/149 I.P.C. There was also an alternative charge against them for offences punishable under the aforesaid sections read with Section 34 I.P.C. All the respondents except Gajendrapal Singh were further charged under Section 342/34 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted all the respondents of all the offences with which they were charged. 3. The person in respect of whom all the offences mentioned in the charge were alleged to have been committed is Shashikala (P.W. 1), aged about 24 or 25 years at the time of the trial. She is a relation of Chaudhry Laiq Singh (respondent). Her father's sister's daughter is married to Suraj Kumar, a younger brother of Laiq Singh. According to that relationship Shashikala was Laiq Singh's younger brother's wife's cousin in other words a sister-in-law. There was also another relationship between Laiq Singh (respondent) and Shashikala (P.W. 1). Laiq Singh's elder brother Nihal Singh was married to the elder sister of Shashikala's brother's wife. The father of Shashikala was a resident of village Jori, district Hazari Bagh, Bihar. Shashikala's mother belonged to village Harganpur, which is at a distance of about five miles from Shikohabad in district Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh. She had inherited some landed property from her parents. After the death of her husband she started living in Shikohabad to look after her property in village Harganpur. She lived at Shikohabad, Chaudhry Laiq Singh, who belonged to her own community and was a rich and influential member of that community, helped her in the management of her property. The brother of Shashikala lived in village Jori to look after his property in the village. In the year 1954 Bhupendra Singh, the brother of Shashikala, took the help of Laiq Singh in getting the family property partitioned by means of arbitration. The brother of Shashikala lived in village Jori to look after his property in the village. In the year 1954 Bhupendra Singh, the brother of Shashikala, took the help of Laiq Singh in getting the family property partitioned by means of arbitration. Laiq Singh (appellant) was, therefore, related and known to the mother and the brother of Km. Shashikala from before the year 1955. 4. The prosecution case briefly stated is that the father of Shashikala had during his lifetime got his daughter admitted in a school called Kanya Gurukul situate in Sasni in the district of Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. In the month of January. 1955, she along with her mother had gone to village Jori to attend the Gauna ceremony of her elder brother Bhupendra Singh. Chaudhry Laiq Singh sent a letter to Bhupendra Singh informing him that the latter could send Shashikala to his place along with common relation and from there he would arrange to send her to her school at Sasni, Aligarh. Bhupendra Singh and his mother could have no objection to this proposal, and therefore, Shashikala was sent to Shikohabad to be sent from there by Laiq Singh to Sasni, Aligarh. After Shashikala had reached the place of Laiq Singh both of them left for Hathras the next day, but instead of taking Shashikala to her school at Sasni. Laid Singh respondent took her to Delhi and stayed with her in the Regal Hotel for two days and two nights from 10 p.m. on January 27, 1955, to 9 p.m. on January 29, 1955, During this period Laiq Singh developed illicit intimacy with Shashikala. She was thereafter taken to the school at Sasni to continue her studies. On 18th February, 1955, Laiq Singh again took Shashikala to Brindaban and stayed with her in Agra Hotel, Mathura on 18th and 19th February, 1955, and also from 22nd February to 24th February, 1955. The result of the illicit intimacy between Chaudhry Laiq Singh and Shashikala was that she became pregnant. Laiq Singh had to arrange for an abortion. With the establishment of illicit intimacy between Laiq Singh and Shashikala correspondence was frequently exchanged between the two and all the expenses of Shashikala were initially borne by Laiq Singh. He was her local guardian and used to take her out and keep her at any place he liked. Laiq Singh had to arrange for an abortion. With the establishment of illicit intimacy between Laiq Singh and Shashikala correspondence was frequently exchanged between the two and all the expenses of Shashikala were initially borne by Laiq Singh. He was her local guardian and used to take her out and keep her at any place he liked. During the year 1955 to 1960 Shashikala became pregnant twice but on each occasion abortion was arranged by Laiq Singh (respondent). Shashikala was told that Laiq Singh would marry her after she had passed her B.A. examination. Unfortunately Shashikala became pregnant again in the year 1960 before she could pass her B.A. examination. Laiq Singh again desired that she should agree to abortion but this time Shashikala was not agreeable. She acquainted her mother regarding her condition and she after having rebuked her, advised Shashikala to get married to Chaudhry Laiq Singh On 22nd September, 1960, a male child was born to Shashikala in a house in mohalla Krishna Nagar, in the city of Lucknow, where Shashikala had been sent to live with Jaideo Singh M.L.A. and other members of his family. After Jaideo Singh and his family left that house Shashikala continued to live there till the month of February, 1961, with one Khandekar, a Maharashtrian gentleman who, according to Shashikala was a man of Chaudhry Laiq Singh and had been deputed by him to look after her comforts. Shashikala sensed some danger to her child and left Lucknow and shifted to village Gainj Dundwara in the district of Etah to live with her cousin Brijendra Singh. Early in the month of July, 1961, Brijendra Singh took Km. Shashikala to Gaya to meet her brother Bhupendra Singh. The latter, on coming to know everything from Shashikala, advised her to go back to Lucknow and make efforts to get herself married to Chaudhry Laiq Singh. He also advised her to Join some service at Lucknow to enable her to earn a livelihood. Shashikala with her child thereafter proceeded to Lucknow and stayed in M.L.As.' Quarter no. 123, Darul Shafa. Lucknow with Laid Singh. At that time Sm. Ram Maya, respondent, wife of Laiq Singh was also there. Shashikala insisted that Chaudhry Laiq Singh must marry her otherwise she would create a scene. Both Laiq Singh and his wife Sm. Shashikala with her child thereafter proceeded to Lucknow and stayed in M.L.As.' Quarter no. 123, Darul Shafa. Lucknow with Laid Singh. At that time Sm. Ram Maya, respondent, wife of Laiq Singh was also there. Shashikala insisted that Chaudhry Laiq Singh must marry her otherwise she would create a scene. Both Laiq Singh and his wife Sm. Ram Maya left Quarter No 123, Darul Shafa, two days after the arrival of Shashikala On 21st July, 1961, Shashikala joined service in Durga Gita Vidyalay, Lucknow. She also took a house on rent in mohalla Babuganj close to her school, and moved some of her things there but she continued to live in M.L.As.' Quarter No. 123. Darul Shafa, Lucknow. A day or two later Gajendrapal Singh (respondent), who was then posted as Second Officer at police station Titawi, district Muzzafernagar. but had taken leave, arrived at Lucknow and stayed in the same M.L.As' quarter Gajendrapal Singh was Sm. Ram Maya's sister's son. He promised to help Shashikala in settling her matters with Laiq Singh. On 25th July, 1961, he took Shashikala and her child to Sudarshan Pictures to show her a cinema film. At about 9.30 p.m., after the show was over, both Gajendrapal Singh (respondent) and Shashikala came out of the Cinema H All. The jeep of Chaudhry Laiq Singh was there outside the cinema house but there was no one on it except the driver who agreed to take them to Darul Shafa after talking to someone at Krishna Nasar. The jeep was stopped at a lonely place outside mohalla Krishnanagar. Gajendrapal Singh (respondent) got down from the jeep and immediately thereafter all the remaining respondents, namely Chaudhry Laiq Singh. Sm Ram Maya, Bimal Kumar and Tej Bahadur, boarded that jeep Kishun Chand (respondent) drove that jeep on Lucknow-Kanpur road towards Kanpur. On being asked by Shashikala, Laiq Singh told her that she was being removed from that place because certain people were after her life. Shashikala got suspicious and asked the driver and others to stop the jeep Thereupon three of the respondents, namely, Laiq Singh. Bimal Kumar and Tej Bahadur, who were occupying the rear portion of the jeep made Shashikala lie down on the floor of the jeep and kept her pressed there after gagging her mouth. Shashikala got suspicious and asked the driver and others to stop the jeep Thereupon three of the respondents, namely, Laiq Singh. Bimal Kumar and Tej Bahadur, who were occupying the rear portion of the jeep made Shashikala lie down on the floor of the jeep and kept her pressed there after gagging her mouth. According to the prosecution case Tej Bahadur (Respondent) was responsible for gagging Shashikala with a part of her own dhoti, while Bimal Kumar was holding her hands, and Laiq Singh her feet. Curtains had already been fixed in that jeep and Laiq Singh told Shashikala that in case she would try to raise an alarm she would be killed. According to the prosecution case Shashikala was taken in that very state upto village Roshnai, a place at a distance of about 26 miles from Kanpur. There the jeep was stopped by a police party headed by Sri Ram Chandra Banotha, Dy. S.P at about 3 a. m. on 26th July. 1961. It so happened that a dacoity had been committed within police circle Sacheri during the night between 19th and 20th July, 1961, and the police of that circle, headed by Sri Ram Chandra Banotha (P W 2). decided to check all vehicles passing on the main road near village Roshnai during the night between the 25th and 26th July, 1961. The work of checking the vehicles was started from 9 p.m. and it was to continue till the next morning. The jeep of the respondents with curtains drawn, was seen coming from Kanpur side and proceeding towards Kalpi. The Dy. S.P. signaled the jeep to stop but it was not immediately stopped. However, some constables headed by a Sub-Inspector were also stationed 50 yards away on the Kalpi side and when they signalled the jeep to stop the driver stopped it. Sri S.C. Vidyarthi, S.I.P.S. Sacheri and Sri Ram Chandra Banotha. Dy S.P. at once rushed towards the jeep to check the vehicle. The Sub-Inspector raised the curtain and threw torch-light inside the jeep and then it was noticed by the police party and also the witnesses of the public who were there from 9 p.m. to witness all the checkings that Shashikala was lying on the floor of the jeep with her mouth gagged with a portion of her own dhoti and the three respondents namely Laid Singh. Bimal Kumar and Tej Bahadur were pressing her down. The respondents at once released their hold as soon as they saw light being flashed inside the jeep Shashikala became free and she at once cried out that she was being taken away to be killed and that she must be saved Sm Ram Maya, who was sitting near the driver holding the baby of Shashikala in her arms, at once cried out that she (Shashikala) was telling a lie and that she was not of sound mind. She also told the police party that Shashikala was her niece and she herself was a sister of Sri Ram Swarup Yadav, a Deputy Minister. Chaudhry Laiq Singh (respondent), who was at the time an M.L.A., also revealed his identity Shashikala, however, repeated her complaint and the Dy S.P. asked her to give her report in writing Thereupon she wrote out a report (Ex Ka 23) and handed it over to Sri S.C. Vidyarthi, who directed that a case be registered against the respondents. The search of all the respondents and also of the jeep was taken and recovery memos prepared. The entire party was travelling without adequate luggage and there was no article whatsoever belonging fu Shashikala inside that jeep. Shashikala had received some injuries inside her mouth because she had been gagged with a portion of her own dhoti. The dhoti had also become stained with blood. The injuries of Shashikala were noted and the blood stained dhoti was duly sealed in the presence of the witnesses. The respondents who had been arrested at the spot were sent to jail the very same day at 10 a.m. The dhoti was sent to the Chemical Examiner and Serologist and was found to be stained with human blood. 5. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses in support of its case. Shashikala (P.W. 1) revealed the entire prosecution story. Sri Ram Chandra Banotha (P.W. 2), Sri S.C. Vidyarathi (P.W. 20) S.O. P.S. Sacheri, Sri Govind Ram S.I. (P.W. 22) then Second Officer P.S. Bidhnu but called on 21st July, 1961, for patrol duties at P.S. Sacheri and two witnesses of the public, namely Fateh Singh Bhartiya (P.W. 5) and Srikant Pandey (P.W. 8) were examined to prove the circumstances in which the jeep had been stopped and checked and the condition in which Km. Shashikala was found at that time. Shashikala was found at that time. Most of the other prosecution witnesses were examined in order to corroborate the statement made by Km. Shashikala on various points. 6. All the accused persons had pleaded not guilty. Chaudhry Laiq Singh (respondent), while explaining the circumstances appearing against him stated on 11th March, 1963, before the Sessions Court that he was 59 years old. That was definitely an attempt en his part to over-state his age. Laid Singh had given out his age to be 55 years only when he was examined before the Committing Magistrate on 18th May, 1962. In less than a year he could not have attained the age of 59 years. There appears to be no reason why the earlier statement made by Laiq Singh about his age should not be accepted. Laiq Singh must, therefore, have been about 48 years of age in the year 1955. 7. Laiq Singh did not dispute his relationship with the five co-accused. He also did not dispute that in the month of January, 1955, he had sent a letter to Bhupendra Singh, the brother of Shashikala to send her to Laiq Singh s place at Shikohabad to be sent from there to her school at Sasni He also did not dispute that in pursuance of that letter Shashikala was sent to his place at Shikohabad and from there he took her to Delhi and stayed with her in Regal Hotel from 27th January to 29th January, 1955. Thereafter she was sent to her school at Sasni. He also did not dispute that he had taken Shashikala to Brindaban and in that connection had stayed with her in Agra Hotel, Mathura, on 18th and 19th February, 1955, and again from 22nd to 24th February, 1955. Further, he did not dispute that in the month of July, 1955, he got Shashikala admitted in Kanya Gurukul Vidyalay, Dehra Dun. He, however, explained that he did so with her mother's consent. There was documentary evidence to show that in the month of June, 1960, Shashikala had stayed with Jaidev Singh at Hardwar and Laiq Singh had written several letters to them expressing his grave anxiety about the health of Shashikala. Laiq Singh did not dispute that Shashikala had gone to Hardwar in the company of Jaidev Singh in the month of June, 1960. He, however explained that she had gone there of her own accord. Laiq Singh did not dispute that Shashikala had gone to Hardwar in the company of Jaidev Singh in the month of June, 1960. He, however explained that she had gone there of her own accord. Again Laiq Singh did not dispute that Shashikala had lived in the house of Jaidev Singh in mohalla Krishna Nagar. Lucknow in the year 1960-61, and that Khandekar also lived in the same house along with Jaidev Singh, He, however, explained that Shashikala was a friend of the wife of Jaidev Singh and had gone to live with Jaidev Singh of her own accord and that Khandekar was a friend of Jaidev Singh and used to live with him on that account. He did not admit that he had deputed Khandekar to look after Shashikala. Laid Singh further explained that the story about his illicit intimacy with Shashikala and consequent abortions arranged by him was all false. He also did not admit the circumstances in which the jeep had been stopped by the police on Kanpur-Kalpi Road and that Shashikala was being kept pressed down or gagged at that time. In order to give a coherent explanation Laiq Singh stated as follows :- "I had very great affection for Shashikala's father. He died in the year 1948 or 1949. He had made me the guardian of both his children, namely Shashikala and her brother, and had desired that I should look after them. Shashikala's father had also told me that I should arrange the marriage of Shashikala with my nephew named Dharmendra. The mother of Shashikala used to reside either at Shikohabad or in village Harganpur, She had her zamindari there. Due to the affection that I had for the family I used to look after her cultivation and also acted as the guardian of Shashikala. The money spent by me on Shashikala used to be reimbursed by her mother or brother. I had got Shashikala admitted at Dehra Dun with the consent of her mother. It was during that period that Shashikala sent love-letters to one Navin and others some of these letters fell in my hand. The money spent by me on Shashikala used to be reimbursed by her mother or brother. I had got Shashikala admitted at Dehra Dun with the consent of her mother. It was during that period that Shashikala sent love-letters to one Navin and others some of these letters fell in my hand. I complained about that to Shashikala's brother and mother They advised me to make attempts to reform her, and I continued to act as her guardian When Shashikala started her residence in Krishna Nagar, Lucknow she became acquainted with my rival in politics Ram Sarup Yadav, Deputy Minister. I had been elected as an M.L.A, from Shikohabad constituency Ram Sarup Yadav had been elected as an M.L.A. from Misrana constituency in district Mainpuri. Ram Sarup Yadav very much desired that in the general elections of 1962 he should become a candidate for M.L.A.-ship from my constituency and that I should not contest the election from that constituency. I did not agree to that it was on that account that Ram Sarup Yadav was displeased with me and with the help of Shashikala he got this false case started against me. After Jaidev Singh had left the house at Krishna Nagar Shashikala continued to live in that house along with Khandekar and great intimacy developed between the two. When I heard about that I became very angry and rebuked Shashikala. She left the house at Krishna Nagar and started residence along with Khandekar in another house situate in mohalla Babuganj, Lucknow. Sometime thereafter Tej Bahadur accused who is Shashikala's father's sister's son came to Lucknow. He told me that the mother of Shashikala had called Shashikala to Shikohabad but she was not prepared to go there and that I should go to Shashikala to make her agree. That very evening I went to Shashikala and gave her some advice. She talked to Khandekar for about ten minutes in privacy and thereafter agreed to accompany me. Myself, Tej Bahadur, Shashikala, her son and Kishan Chand went to Darulshafa on my jeep. From my room there we took certain articles with us. My wife Ram Maya and Vimla Kumar also boarded that jeep at Darulshafa. All of us left Luck-now on that jeep at about 9 p.m. for Shikohabad. Myself, Tej Bahadur, Shashikala, her son and Kishan Chand went to Darulshafa on my jeep. From my room there we took certain articles with us. My wife Ram Maya and Vimla Kumar also boarded that jeep at Darulshafa. All of us left Luck-now on that jeep at about 9 p.m. for Shikohabad. When our jeep reached near village Roshnai at about 12 in the night the police party got it stopped and the jeep was stopped immediately. The police party surrounded the jeep. They arrested all of us and kept us at that very place till sunrise. They separated Shashikala from us. They took us to Canal Inspection House in the morning. It was at a distance of about one mile (from the place where we had been detained). At that place Sri Banotha, Dy. S.P., the A.P.P. and the S.O. Kacheri and others in consultation with each other got report prepared by Shashikala at about 10 a.m. Thereafter at about 12 noon the S.P. (R.A.) came to police station Sacheri. We were presented to him. From him we learnt that we shall be sent to jail. I wanted to reason with them but no police officer was prepared to listen to me. I was searched at the "police station and despatched from there to jail at 3 p.m. I was going to Shikohabad that night to vote at a member to elect the President, Antarim Zila Parishad on 28th July, 1961. I was the General Secretary of U.P. Swatantra Party and at my instance one candidate of Swatantra party was opposing the Congress candidate for that post. My presence at Shikohabad was urgently needed." 8. The explanations given by other accused persons, with the exception of Tej Bahadur, were very brief. All of them did not dispute their presence inside the jeep at the time it was stopped by the police party Sm Rama Maya did not dispute that she is the wife of Laid Singh. She, however, explained that she was going to Shikohabad to her home with her husband Gajendrapal Singh admitted that he was Sm. Ram Maya's sister's son and that he had been on leave from 21st July to 28th July, 1961. He explained that he had been falsely implicated because Shashikala thought that Laiq Singh would give his property to him. She, however, explained that she was going to Shikohabad to her home with her husband Gajendrapal Singh admitted that he was Sm. Ram Maya's sister's son and that he had been on leave from 21st July to 28th July, 1961. He explained that he had been falsely implicated because Shashikala thought that Laiq Singh would give his property to him. Vimal Kumar admitted that he is a nephew of Laiq Singh and explained that he had been falsely implicated due to ill-feelings. Kishan Chand did not dispute that he was the driver of the vehicle which was detained by the police and explained that he had been falsely implicated because he happened to be the driver of that jeep. Tej Bahadur did not dispute that he was a brother of Laiq Singh's younger brother's wife. He, however, explained that he had gone to Lucknow to persuade Shashikala to go to her mother who wanted her at Shikohabad. He stated as follows :- "Shashikala is my mother's brother's daughter. At the request of my maternal uncle's wife I had gone to Lucknow to fetch Shashikala from there. Shashikala used to live in a room in mohalla Babuganj. I went there, but Shashikala was not agreeable to go to Shikohabad. I met Laiq Singh and asked him to persuade Shashikala to do so. All of us went to Shashikala to her Babuganj residence. After a good deal of persuasion by Laiq Singh Shashikala agreed to go to Shikohabad. Thereafter Shashikala, her child, Laiq Singh and myself proceeded on that jeep to Darulshafa and there Sm. Ram Maya and Vimal Kumar also joined us. All of us were going to Shikohabad when on the way near village Fatehpur Roshnai at about 12 in the night the police party stopped our jeep and arrested us." 9. Six witnesses were examined in support of the defence case. Bhup Narain (D.W. 1) deposed that his election as Adhyaksh, Mainpuri Antarim Zila Parishad was to take place on 28th July, 1961, and that Laiq Singh had promised him help. Jagdishwar Sahai (D.W. 2), Jailor. Kanpur, deposed that Laiq Singh had been admitted to jail at about 6 p.m. on 26th July, 1961. Bhup Narain (D.W. 1) and Nathu Singh, M.L.A. (D.W. 6) deposed about the political rivalry between Laiq Singh and Sri Ram Sarup Yadav, Deputy Minister. Nathu Singh. Jagdishwar Sahai (D.W. 2), Jailor. Kanpur, deposed that Laiq Singh had been admitted to jail at about 6 p.m. on 26th July, 1961. Bhup Narain (D.W. 1) and Nathu Singh, M.L.A. (D.W. 6) deposed about the political rivalry between Laiq Singh and Sri Ram Sarup Yadav, Deputy Minister. Nathu Singh. M.L.A. further deposed that at the time of the occurrence Sri Ram Sarup Yadav was incharge of Home Department in his capacity as a Deputy Minister. Other defence witnesses were examined in support of the contention that jeep of Laiq Singh had arrived at Kanpur bridge before 11.30 p.m. and therefore should have reached village Roshnai by about 12 or 12.30 the same night. 10. The learned Sessions Judge, after having considered the entire evidence on the record, arrived at the conclusion that Shashikala was not a chaste lady, that she must have had her love affairs with one Navin to whom she admitted to have sent love letters and with Khandekar with whom she lived in a house at Krishna Nagar for several months, that her testimony was not properly corroborated and no reliance could be placed on it and that the probability that the jeep had been stopped at about 12 noon and not at about 3 a.m. as alleged by the prosecution and the whole case had been fabricated by the police could not be ruled out as the investigation did not appear to be fair. On the basis of those findings he acquitted all the accused persons. 11. The main points for consideration in this appeal are :- (a) Whether the jeep of Laiq Singh had been stopped by the police party at about 3 a.m. and Shashikala was found gagged and pressed down, as alleged by the prosecution. (b) Whether the material portions of the statement made by Shashikala stand duly corroborated by independent evidence and she is worthy of credence. (c) Whether the investigation was fair. 11a. There is abundant evidence on the record to show that the arrest of Laiq Singh and others was made in the circumstances alleged by the prosecution and at the time their jeep was stopped Shashikala was found lying gagged in the rear part of the vehicle with Laiq Singh, Vimal Kumar and Tej Bahadur keeping her pressed down in that position. Besides the statement made by Shashikala on that point we have the testimony of the members of the police party, namely, Sri Ram Chandra Banodha Dy. S.P. (P.W. 2), Sri S.C. Vedyarthi (P.W. 20), S.O.P.S. Sacheri, Sri Govind Ram, S.I. (P.W. 22), Second Officer P.S. Bidhnu, called on 21st July, 1961, to P.S. Sacheri for patrol duties, and constable Badri Prasad (P.W. 4). All of them have fully supported the prosecution case. Since a general checking was going on some witnesses of the public had also been called and from amongst them Fateh Singh Bhartia (P.W. 3), a resident of village Fatehpur, and Srikant Pandey (P.W. 8), a resident of village Fatehpur Roshnai, police circle Sacheri. have been examined. All of them fully supported the prosecution case. They have been cross-examined at length but their statements have been throughout consistent. It is clear from their testimony that the jeep of Laiq Singh and others was seen coming from the Kanpur side at about 3 a.m. on Kanpur-Kalpi Road near village Roshnai. Sri Ram Chandra Banodha Dy. S.P. gave a signal to the driver of the jeep to stop it but he did not do so. On seeing that the second police party which was posted at a distance of 50 yards down the road again signalled the driver to stop the jeep and the latter did actually stop it. Just then senior members of the police party accompanied by the witnesses of the public reached there. The curtains of the jeep were drawn and the S.O. pulled out one of the curtains and flashed his torch inside the jeep and it was then that he along with other prosecution witnesses who had reached there could see that Shashikala was lying gagged and pressed inside the back portion of the jeep and Tej Bahadur was keeping her gagged while he along with Laiq Singh and Vimal Kumar were keeping her pressed to the floor of the jeep. 12. The story given out by the prosecution witnesses is not inherently improbable. In the circumstances in which the jeep had been stopped and one of its curtains removed and torch light flashed inside the veiled jeep Shashikala could have been seen by the witnesses lying on the floor of the jeep sagged and pressed down, as deposed to by the prosecution witnesses. 13. In the circumstances in which the jeep had been stopped and one of its curtains removed and torch light flashed inside the veiled jeep Shashikala could have been seen by the witnesses lying on the floor of the jeep sagged and pressed down, as deposed to by the prosecution witnesses. 13. The only infirmity which could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused persons (respondent) in the statement of Fateh Singh Bhartia (P.W. 3), one of the prosecution witnesses on that point was that he is a man aged 70 and according to his own admissions his eye-sight was weak. The witness had pointed out Gajendrapal Singh as the driver of the jeep. All that could only show that Fateh Singh Bhartia, being an old man, may not have been able to reach the jeep as early as younger people of his group could and that he may not have been able to see the faces of the accused persons very distinctly. However, that in our opinion does not create any infirmity in the reliability of this witness for the simple reason that he himself admitted during the course of his examination-in-chief that being an old man he had reached the jeep a little later. He frankly admitted in his cross-examination that his eye-sight was somewhat weak. He was unable to identify the driver of the vehicle correctly. However, these facts are not of much consequence because the identity of the accused persons and also the identity of the driver of the vehicle have not been challenged by the defence. 14. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused persons that the statement made by the police officers should not be relied upon because (a) they could have been acting under the influence of Sri Ram Swarup Yadav, Deputy Minister who was in charge of the Home Department at that time, and (b) there is evidence to show that the investigation was not quite fair and the jeep must have been stopped at about 12 in the night and not at about 3, as alleged by the prosecution. 15. There is no substance whatsoever in the suggestion that the hold-up by the police must have been manipulated by Sri Ram Sarup Yadav, Deputy Minister, who was in charge of the Home Department at that time. 15. There is no substance whatsoever in the suggestion that the hold-up by the police must have been manipulated by Sri Ram Sarup Yadav, Deputy Minister, who was in charge of the Home Department at that time. Sri Ram Sarup Yadav a Congress member of the Legislative Assembly had already one constituency from which he had been successful in the last general elections. Even if he thought that it was better for himself to contest the elections in the year 1962 from Shikohabad constituency, there could not be much of sense in asking Laiq Singh not to contest from that constituency. It had come in the defence evidence itself that the allotment of the constituencies had not been made by the Congress party till the time of the occurrence. Sri Ram Sarup Yadav could not, therefore, be very certain that he would be permitted to contest the election from Shikohabad which was not his own constituency. Besides, he could not force the members of other political parties not to contest the election from that constituency. At the most he could persuade Laiq Singh through common friends not to contest election from that constituency but there could be no guarantee that no other member of the Yadav community belonging to other political groups would contest the election from that constituency. 16. The mere fact that Sri Ram Sarup Yadav had actually contested the election from Shikohabad constituency in the year 1962 cannot lead us to the inference that at the time of this occurrence he must have been interested in getting Laiq Singh involved in some criminal case. 17. The evidence led by the defence to prove that Sri Ram Sarup Yadav had made an attempt to influence Laiq Singh (respondent) not to contest the election of 1962 from Shikohabad constituency is not, at all reliable. Bhup Narain (D.W. 1) stated that Sri Ram Sarup Yadav had made a request to him on two or three occasions before the month of July, 1961, to persuade Laiq Singh not to contest the election from Shikohabad constituency. Bhup Narain is not at all a reliable witness because on his own showing he is very much interested in Laiq Singh. He had to admit that Sri Ram Sarup Yadav got his ticket to contest the election from Shikohabad constituency only in the month of January, 1962. Bhup Narain is not at all a reliable witness because on his own showing he is very much interested in Laiq Singh. He had to admit that Sri Ram Sarup Yadav got his ticket to contest the election from Shikohabad constituency only in the month of January, 1962. The witness had further to admit that relations between him and Sri Ram Sarup Yadav had become strained from the month of July, 1961. Another witness on that point is Sri Nathu Singh, M.L.A. (D.W. 6). Both he and Laiq Singh (respondent) belong to Yadav community. It has come in the prosecution evidence that Jaidev Singh was on very friendly terms with Laiq Singh (respondent) Nathu Singh (D.W. 6) admitted that at one time he and Jaidev Singh occupied one and the same room at Darulshafa, Lucknow. The witness further stated that there were political differences between him and Sri Ram Sarup Yadav. In the circumstances both these witnesses could have no hesitation in coming forward to support the defence case and to unnecessarily malign Sri Ram Sarup Yadav. 18. While explaining the circumstances appearing against him, Laid Singh accused (respondent) had stated that before agreeing to go back to her mother to Shikohabad, Shashikala had some private talk with Khandekar for about ten minutes it was also stated by him that Shashikala was on friendly terms with Sri Ram Sarup Yadav. From what has been stated above an inference is sought to be drawn that during those ten minutes when Shashikala talked to Khandekar privately she must have told him what action Sri Ram Sarup Yadav must take in order to assassinate the character of Laiq Singh. We attach no importance whatsoever to the aforesaid vague suggestions made by or on behalf of the accused Laiq Singh. In our opinion there is nothing on the record which could indicate that Sri Ram Sarup Yadav, Deputy Minister, could have any hand in this matter. [After discussing the defence evidence and rejecting it, (in Paras 19 to 23) the judgement proceeded :-] 24. In our opinion there is nothing on the record which could indicate that Sri Ram Sarup Yadav, Deputy Minister, could have any hand in this matter. [After discussing the defence evidence and rejecting it, (in Paras 19 to 23) the judgement proceeded :-] 24. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the investigation against the accused persons could not be said to be fair because (a) certain wrong entries were made in the recovery memo prepared consequent on the arrest of Laiq Singh, and (b) the blood-stained dhoti of Shashikala alleged to have been recovered at the place of occurrence and sealed in the presence of the witnesses did not find any place in the report (Ex. Ka.-61) written by the investigating officer on reaching P.S. Sacheri. 25. There is no force in any of these contentions. It does appear that Laiq Singh was wearing a gold ring in one of his fingers and the same could not be taken out at the time of his arrest. A goldsmith had to be called at P.S. Sacheri when the police party along with the arrested persons arrived there the next morning and it was then that the ring was cut and taken out of the finger. That fact has been mentioned in the G.D. report. However, in the recovery memo (Ex. Ka-60) the entry about the ring recovered from the possession of Laiq Singh is in the following terms :- "4. One gold ring which was first cut and then taken out from the finger - weight about 4 annas." 26. The prosecution witnesses stated that the recovery memo was prepared at the spot. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the statement made by the prosecution witnesses on that point could not be true because the recovery memo must have been prepared not at the place where the jeep had been stopped at about 3 a.m. but a few hours later at P.S. Sacheri after the goldsmith had been called. In our opinion there is no justification for making that inference. At the time the recovery memo was prepared it must have become clear how the ring could be taken out of the finger. In our opinion there is no justification for making that inference. At the time the recovery memo was prepared it must have become clear how the ring could be taken out of the finger. The S.O. must have decided at that very time to take out the ring from the finger after getting the ring cut by a goldsmith at P.S. Sacheri. The list had to be drawn up immediately in the presence of the witnesses. Since the articles recovered from the possession of the arrested persons were not sealed and the S.O. was taking those articles and the arrested persons to the police station, there could be no serious objection in mentioning that he had also taken the ring in his possession. The investigating officer may not have thought it proper to use future tense in the recovery memo and that appears to be the reason why he used the same expression in the past tense. In our opinion the mere form of expression will not go to indicate that the investigation was unfair. On the other hand, the very mention of the fact in the G.D. report that a goldsmith had been called from village Sacheri to take out the ring from the finger of Laiq Singh will indicate that the investigation was fair. [After believing the seizure memos written by the police to have been duly made in Paras 27 to 30 the judgement proceeded :-] 31. There is no evidence to support the statement made by Laiq Singh while explaining the circumstances appearing against him that immediately after the jeep had been stopped Shashikala had been separated from the rest of the party or that Shashikala wrote out the first information report (Ex. Ka-48) in consultation with the police officers. The evidence led by the prosecution proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the first information report was written out by Shashikala then and there, and without any consultation. 32. In our opinion there is nothing to show that the investigation of the case was not fair. 33. It was further submitted that inasmuch as Shashikala (P.W. 1) had stated at one or two places that the Magistrate had recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr. 32. In our opinion there is nothing to show that the investigation of the case was not fair. 33. It was further submitted that inasmuch as Shashikala (P.W. 1) had stated at one or two places that the Magistrate had recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. on 26th July, 1961, it must be taken for granted that her statement was actually recorded on 26th July, 1961 and not on 27th July, 1961 as alleged by the prosecution. The statement of Shashikala recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. on 27th July, 1961 was filed, but no such statement dated 26th July 1961 was filed. It was, therefore, argued that if that statement dated 26th July, 1961 had been filed it might have favoured the accused persons. In our opinion there is no force in this argument. It is clear from the statement of Shashikala and also of the investigating officer that she was examined by a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P.C. only once. She did become confused during the cross-examination and stated at one or two places that her statement had been recorded on 26th July, 1961. However, subsequently when her attention was drawn to the date of her statement as filed in court, she deposed that she must have been examined on 27th July 1961, and not on 26th July, 1961. No adverse inference can be drawn from a confused statement made by a witness when it is clear that her statement was recorded only once and the same has been filed in court. 34. The statement by itself is inadmissible in evidence. It could only be used for purposes of contradiction. In case there was any other statement of Shashikala made on 26th July, 1961, the defence ought to have summoned and produced the same if it wanted to use it for purposes of contradictions. However, it could not have done so because it appears that the statement of Shashikala was recorded by the Magistrate not on 26th July, 1961, but on 27th July, 1961. 35. The main witness in the case against Laiq Singh and others is Shashikala (P.W. 1). Unless her testimony is believed and she is relied upon no offence can be made out against any of the appellants. 35. The main witness in the case against Laiq Singh and others is Shashikala (P.W. 1). Unless her testimony is believed and she is relied upon no offence can be made out against any of the appellants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, has placed no reliance on her statement because in his opinion there was no independent corroboration of her statement. We are unable to agree with what he has said on that point. In our opinion the statement made by Shashikala stands duly corroborated by independent evidence, both oral and documentary, and also by the circumstances of the case. 36. According to Shashikala (P.W. 1) illicit intimacy developed between Laiq Singh and Shashikala after she had been called by the former in the month of January, 1955, from her brother's place in village Jari (Bihar) to Shikohabad for being sent from there to Sasni (district Aligarh). The statement of Shashikala is that immediately after her arrival at Shikohabad she was taken by Laiq Singh to Delhi where both Laiq Singh and Shashikala stayed in a hotel for two days and two nights. According to her statement illicit intimacy be-between the two developed at that place. 37. Laiq Singh, while explaining the circumstances appearing against him did not dispute that after the arrival of Shashikala at Shikohabad, he had taken her to Delhi and stayed there in a hotel for two days. His contention, however, was that no illicit intimacy developed between the two during their stay in Delhi. 38. It is difficult to understand why a young girl aged 17 was taken by a man aged about 48 years to a wrong destination and there detained in a hotel for two days. The probabilities, therefore, are in favour of the statement made by Shashikala that illicit intimacy between the two developed during that period. 39. During the course of her cross-examination Shashikala stated that she used to address Laiq Singh as "pujya Pitaji" in all the letters written by her to Lain Singh. She also admitted that at one time she had sent love letters to one Navin. The explanation given by Laiq Singh was that some of the love letters written by Shashikala to Navin had fallen in his hands and he filed four such letters. They form Exs. Kha-3 to Kha-6 on the record. She also admitted that at one time she had sent love letters to one Navin. The explanation given by Laiq Singh was that some of the love letters written by Shashikala to Navin had fallen in his hands and he filed four such letters. They form Exs. Kha-3 to Kha-6 on the record. A careful perusal of these letters will show that all of them were written to Laiq Singh and not to any other person. 40. It has come in the prosecution evidence that Laiq Singh was a great believer in Gayatri Jap and was a philosopher teacher. Several letters written by him and admitted by him to be in his handwriting also indicate that fact. It has also come in the prosecution evidence that the marriage of Bhupendra Singh, the brother of Shashikala, had been arranged through Laiq Singh. He therefore, knew both Bhupendra Singh and his wife. 41. The relevant portions of Ex-K.ha-3, dated 16th February, 1955, read as follows : "The joy of my heart, You entered my listless life bringing Basant (a festival in spring season) with you. At the time I was sitting at Shikohabad railway station there was a great tumult in my heart. I wished you could see my pitiable condition of that time. Then you could see that a dangerous storm of uncertainty was blowing inside my heart. The cry of my mind was tearing my heart to pieces but I was enduring all that on the strength of my tears which I was consuming myself. I did not know what to do. You were insisting to complete the unfinished chapter. Oh, my condition was similar to that of a serpent who suddenly comes across a dirty rodent (Chhachuunder). ........ Whenever your letters were received by my brother at Jari or my sister-in-law I used to read them with great attention and through those letters I used to attain a strange sort of peace. Who knows what is in store in future. ..... I have already written a letter to Jiji as advised by you. I have also written a letter to you to your Shikohabad address. ..... .....But what can I do ? I have already sent two letters to you. It is my ill luck that the feelings of my heart have not reached your slender hands . . ..... I have already written a letter to Jiji as advised by you. I have also written a letter to you to your Shikohabad address. ..... .....But what can I do ? I have already sent two letters to you. It is my ill luck that the feelings of my heart have not reached your slender hands . . .I have no courage to write many things in this letter because I am not at all sure that it will reach safely your hands. Abha has arrived. Vidya and Abha send their respects to you. I also send my love bondage with my own love. . . Everybody likes your preachings and they always praise you. .......... Please always pay attention to the cravings and crying of this mad creature. You should never forget me. End. Yours Smriti Kalika". It is to be noted that this letter (Ex. Kha-3) was written by Shashikala on 16th February, 1955, about a fortnight or so after her return from Delhi. She and Laiq Singh had stayed there for two days during the Basant festival. There is a reference in this letter to Shikohabad, which was the place of residence of the addressee. Again, the letter shows that the person to whom it was addressed used to go to the school of Shashikala quite frequently and could even meet her classmates and preach to them as an elder. With so many pointers that the letter Ex. Kha-3 filed by the defence must have been addressed to Laiq Singh and to no one else there hardly remains any doubt on that point. 42. Laiq Singh took Shashikala to Mathura and stayed with her in Agra Hotel for several days in the second and third weeks of February, 1955. The next letter Ex. Kha-4 dated 8th March, 1955, reads as follows : "The necklace of my life .... Gently swinging in the sweet remembrances I could sit for writing this letter after so many days. ..... Your copy book and lectures on Gita have come with me and are safe. I shall send them back to you as and when you direct me to do so. I have taken that medicine. However it had no effect. On the other hand it gave me fever. I have become very weak on that account .... God only knows what will happen. I shall send them back to you as and when you direct me to do so. I have taken that medicine. However it had no effect. On the other hand it gave me fever. I have become very weak on that account .... God only knows what will happen. I have not taken the last two pills. The reason is that nothing was happening and it was useless to become very weak. The rest is alright. Please do give information about yourself regularly. I remain very anxious about your welfare. You should never think that you can also omit to write letters to me because I am not able to reply to your letters in time, the ornament of my heart. .... The beauty of Mathura and Bindraban and the quiet moonshine of that place have created a deep impression on my mind and entered my life. ... .I have lost my appetite and whenever I eat anything I vomit. I cannot under-stand what I should do. The examination is very near and this is the condition of my health. What will happen and how, these are the thoughts which constantly disturb my mind. ....." This letter was written soon after the Mathura visit when both Laiq Singh and Shashikala had stayed together in hotels for several days. It also indicates that Shashikala was not keeping good health during the month of March, 1955. Her own condition described by her and also the use of medicines taken by her on the advice of the addressee show that in all probability Shashikala had become, pregnant at that time. This is also what Shashikala had said in her statement before the court. There is, therefore, internal evidence in the letter Ex-Kha-4 to show that it must have been written by Shashikala to Laiq Singh. 43. The relevant portions of Ex. Kha-5 dated 28th January, 1957 read as follows : "The creeper of Basant, my great love, Blessed be this day. A lover can do his duty by observing the anniversary of love on this pious day. Like sun and moon there are only two main actors in this colourful Basant festival-God and his devotees *****. This pious day (the third anniversary of Basant festival) (and also of our union) remind us both of our duties and also seem to give the blessing that the future may be happy .................. Like sun and moon there are only two main actors in this colourful Basant festival-God and his devotees *****. This pious day (the third anniversary of Basant festival) (and also of our union) remind us both of our duties and also seem to give the blessing that the future may be happy .................. You have given me in the shape of father and lover all that I did not possess. I shall therefore remain indebted to you all my life. .... It is your primary duty that with the rich experience which you have got you should make my path which is full of thorns as one fully covered with flowers ...... When the time comes your future life will be happy because of the kindness shown to me that is my firm conviction. Whatever I say now will not prove to be a mere dream arising out of my fruitless words but something which will assume the form of truth (just at present I am a student). In future this very life of mine may prove to be a guiding factor in your way. One that will always be yours. . ." According to Shashikala (P.W. 1) illicit intimacy between her and Laiq Singh started towards the end of the month of January, 1955. It was a Basant day. The letter Ex. Kha-5 was also written on the Basant day commemorating the third anniversary of the union of the two lovers. The portions which have been cited above will clearly show two things - (1) Shashikala was writing to a person who was very much advanced in age and who called himself her father but had also acted as her lover: and (2) she was desirous of marrying him after completing her studies. The statement of Shashikala (P.W. 1) is that Laiq Singh had promised to marry her after she had graduated. This letter too could have been addressed only to Laiq Singh and to no one else. 44. The next letter Ex-Kha-6 is undated and it does not show to whom it was addressed. However, a perusal of this letter shows that the writer had been carrying on illicit intimacy with someone and was very much afraid of the future. The relevant portions of this letter read as follows - "I have been regularly receiving your letters. However, man is always governed by the circumstances. However, a perusal of this letter shows that the writer had been carrying on illicit intimacy with someone and was very much afraid of the future. The relevant portions of this letter read as follows - "I have been regularly receiving your letters. However, man is always governed by the circumstances. He has always found himself unable to march against the rules of the society. What can I write to you ? You cannot be displaced from the place which you have attained in my heart. Even you cannot displace your image from there. .... Please excuse my faults. What should I do ? I am mad. I do not believe in showy things. This world is full of agony from times immemorial and even stones have been detected weeping. What more can I write I become very much afraid these days. I do not like the foul atmosphere of this world. This has been my motto throughout. 'I shall weep but I would not be able to say what I feel'. Please take the watch from this place because there is every danger of its being stolen. . . Please pay no attention to my shortcomings. Yours madly, Shashi." 45. All these four letters were filed by defence because the explanation of Laiq Singh was that in the year 1955 Shashikala had developed friendship with one Navin and had started writing love letters to him and that some of those letters had fallen into his hands. These four letters which were admittedly written by Shashikala and had been received by Laiq Singh could not have been surreptitiously intercepted by him but must have been addressed to him and to no one else. As pointed out earlier, there is internal evidence in the letters Exs. Kha-3 to -Kha-5 to show that they must have been written by Shashikala to Laiq Singh. Even the letter Ex. Kha-6 could have been written to Laiq Singh by the same person. 46. It is significant to note that Shashikala (P.W. 1) was cross-examined at length. These letters were shown to her and she was asked to identify her handwriting. She stated that all these letters were in her handwriting. However, no attempt was made by the defence to enquire from the witness to whom those letters had been addressed. 46. It is significant to note that Shashikala (P.W. 1) was cross-examined at length. These letters were shown to her and she was asked to identify her handwriting. She stated that all these letters were in her handwriting. However, no attempt was made by the defence to enquire from the witness to whom those letters had been addressed. Had Shashikala been asked that question she could easily say that those letters were addressed to Laiq Singh and no one else. However, since that question was not put to Shashikala that answer did not come. 47. In our opinion the letters Exs. Kha-3 to Kha-6 filed by the defence must have been written by Shashikala (P.W. 1) to Laiq Singh. They fully corroborate the statement made by Shashikala on various points, such as (1) Laiq Singh and Shashikala had developed illicit intimacy on Basant day during their stay in Delhi in the month of January, 1955, (2) Shashikala continued to cherish that love during the period (1955-57) that she wrote those letters, (3) in all probability Shashikala had become pregnant in the early part of the year 1955 and she had been given some strong medicine which could relieve her of that condition. 48. The statement made by Shashikala (P.W. 1) is that during 1956 to 1959 she again conceived twice as a result of continued illicit intimacy between her and Laiq Singh and that each time an abortion was arranged at Hardwar with the aid of Laiq Singh. There could not be and there is not much of evidence on the point as to how those three abortions were arranged by Laiq Singh at Hardwar. (After rejecting the evidence of Pravin Singh (P.W. 16), the judgement proceeded). Ram Dulari (P.W. 17), a midwife, practising in Hardwar, was examined to prove that during the year 1956-57 she examined Shashikala and from her condition could judge that she must have had an abortion sometime before she was called. According to Shashikala (P.W. 1) it was Ram Dulari who had got the abortions done. Ram Dulari could not and did not support Shashikala on that point, and stated that abortion must have taken place three or four days before she was called to examine Shashikala. According to Shashikala (P.W. 1) it was Ram Dulari who had got the abortions done. Ram Dulari could not and did not support Shashikala on that point, and stated that abortion must have taken place three or four days before she was called to examine Shashikala. Ram Dulari (P.W. 17) stated that she had treated Shashikala only once in the year 1956 or 1957, that is about six or seven years before she was examined as a witness. The statement made by Ram Dulari (P.W. 17) is worthy of credence. She might be hiding the fact that she got the abortion done for obvious reasons. She could, however, remember the name of her patient and the place where she was staying. It mattered little that she was examined in court about six years after the abortion. In our opinion, the statement made by Ram Dulari corroborates the story of abortions as given out by Shashikala. 49. Shashikala (P.W. 1) conceived again towards the end of the year 1960. This time she did not agree to get the abortion done. There is however, abundant evidence on the record to show that in the month of June, 1961, she had gone to Hardwar in the company of Jaidev Singh, M.L.A., a friend of Laiq Singh who had been deputed by the latter to look after the comforts of Shashikala. Several letters were written by Laiq Singh to Shashikala and Jaidev Singh who was also known as Dadaji. Some of them have been printed and form Exs. Ka-12 to Ka-20 on the record. The first letter Ex-Ka-12, is dated 15th June, 1960, and the last letter is dated 22nd June, 1960. A perusal of all these letters will show that Jaidev Singh had been deputed by Laiq Singh to look after the comforts of Shashikala (P.W. 1), that Laiq Singh was bearing all the expenses of the two and was very eager that rich and proper diet should be given to Shashikala to maintain her health and that she should also be shown to a lady doctor. Laiq Singh postponed his visit to Hardwar from time to time and kept on expressing his astonishment at the conduct of Shashikala in not showing herself to a doctor. 50. Laiq Singh postponed his visit to Hardwar from time to time and kept on expressing his astonishment at the conduct of Shashikala in not showing herself to a doctor. 50. According to Shashikala she had been sent to Hardwar to get the abortion done but nothing happened because she did not agree to the proposal made by Laiq Singh. 51. Again the statement made by Shashikala that the child that was born to her was that of Laiq Singh must be true. There is documentary evidence in support of the fact that it was Laid Singh who had sent Shashikala to the house of Jaidev Singh in mohalla Krishna Nagar, Lucknow, after persuading him to take that house on rent, and even after Jaidev Singh had left Laiq Singh agreed to bear the expenses. Khandekar constantly demanded the rent and other expenses from him : (vide letters Exs. Kha-21 and Ka-57 to Ka-59). Ex. Ka-21 is a letter written by Laiq Singh jointly to Khandekar and Shashikala. The latter was enjoined to take great care of her health, so that on his next visit to that place he might find her in perfect health and be happy. The letter Ex. Ka-59 is from D.S. Khandekar to Chaudhry Sahab (Laiq Singh) and is dated 28th March, 1961, intimating to the addressee that the payment of Rs. 41/12/-was outstanding and must be made. It also shows that the rent of the house in which Jaidev Singh and Shashikala lived had to be paid by Laiq Singh. 52. The next letter is Ex-Ka-58, dated 25th March, 1961, written by Khandekar and addressed to Chaudhry Sahab asking for money. His last letter is Ex-Ka-57, dated 23rd March, 1961, requesting the addressee not to make any further delay. 53. Unfortunately D.S. Khandekar could not be examined by the prosecution. The letters which were in his handwriting were, therefore, proved by Shashikala (P.W. 1). Even if no reliance is placed on the letters written by Khandekar it is abundantly clear that he was Laiq Singh's man and lived with Shashikala on behalf of Laiq Singh. The letter Ex. Ka-21 written by Laiq Singh jointly to Khandekar and Shashikala will clearly show that Khandekar was Laiq Singh's man. Even if no reliance is placed on the letters written by Khandekar it is abundantly clear that he was Laiq Singh's man and lived with Shashikala on behalf of Laiq Singh. The letter Ex. Ka-21 written by Laiq Singh jointly to Khandekar and Shashikala will clearly show that Khandekar was Laiq Singh's man. It is to be noted that this letter was written to Khandekar and Shashi jointly in the same manner as letters used to be written to Jaidev Singh and Shashikala jointly while they remained at Hardwar in the month of June, 1960. 54. The letter Ex-Kha-5 dated 28th January, 1957, written by Shashikala clearly shows that she was almost confident that she would marry the addressee Laiq Singh after finishing her studies. Shashikala (P.W. 1) did not agree to any abortion in the year 1961 when she had a full time delivery and remained under the impression that Laiq Singh would marry her. In the circumstances it is not at all strange that after having remained with her cousin for a few months in the district of Etah Shashikala, after consulting her mother and brother, went to Lucknow in the month of July, 1961, and asked Laiq Singh to keep his promise. The mother of Shashikala was not examined as a prosecution witness. She is dead. However her brother was examined as P.W. 9, and he fully corroborated the statement made by Shashikala (P.W. 1) on that point. 55. In the month of July, 1961 Shashikala had become desperate and had told Laiq Singh very plainly that unless he agreed to marry her she would create a scene. She was not prepared to keep mum any longer. On hearing that Laiq Singh and his wife left their Darulshafa residence where Shashikala continued to live alone till the arrival of Gajendrapal Singh. Thereafter both Gajendrapal Singh and Shashikala lived in room no. 123, Darulshafa Lucknow which was the residence of Laiq Singh accused in his capacity as an M.L.A. 56. That part of the statement of Shashikala is amply corroborated from the statements made by Hari Bhushan Singh, Block Caretaker (P.W. 10), Babu Ram Verma (P.W. 19) and Khaiali Ram (P.W. 23). Thereafter both Gajendrapal Singh and Shashikala lived in room no. 123, Darulshafa Lucknow which was the residence of Laiq Singh accused in his capacity as an M.L.A. 56. That part of the statement of Shashikala is amply corroborated from the statements made by Hari Bhushan Singh, Block Caretaker (P.W. 10), Babu Ram Verma (P.W. 19) and Khaiali Ram (P.W. 23). Hari Bhushan Singh (P.W. 10) Block Caretaker deposed that room No. 123, Darulshafa, Lucknow, was occupied by Laiq Singh in his capacity as an M.L.A. On 24th July, 1961, i.e., one day prior to the occurrence he received information from, some source that there was danger to the life of a girl who was staying in room no. 123. He went to that room and a girl whose face he could not see told him from behind a chik that there was no danger to her life. She also told him that another person who was living in that room was her relation. The witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution because in his statement before the investigating officer he had stated that he was able to identify both Shashikala and Gajendrapal Singh. The witness might or might not have stated the truth about his ability to properly identify Shashikala and Gajendrapal Singh. However, the fact remained that on 24th July, 1961, i.e., only one day prior to the occurrence he had received information that a girl was staying in room No. 123 along with her relation and that there was danger to her life. 57. The next witness examined by the prosecution on that point is Babu Ram Verma (P.W. 19), a relation of Himmat Singh, M.L.A. who stayed in room No. 122 for his supplementary examinations from July 7 to July 29, 1961. He deposed that Gajendrapal Singh had come to stay in room no. 123 three or four days before the occurrence and that on the evening of the occurrence Shashikala had left Darulshafa in the company of Gajendrapal Singh but later on at about 11 p.m. Gajendrapal Singh alone returned to that room. On an enquiry made by the witness from Gajendrapal Singh as to where Shashikala had gone the accused Gajendrapal Singh had replied that she must have gone to her school. The witness, however, could not identify Gajendrapal Singh correctly and wrongly pointed out Vimal Kumar as Gajendrapal Singh. 58. On an enquiry made by the witness from Gajendrapal Singh as to where Shashikala had gone the accused Gajendrapal Singh had replied that she must have gone to her school. The witness, however, could not identify Gajendrapal Singh correctly and wrongly pointed out Vimal Kumar as Gajendrapal Singh. 58. The next witness on that point is Khaiali Ram, (P.W. 23) who was then a member of the Legislative Assembly and lived in room No. 124 which was just opposite to room no 123 in Darulshafa. Lucknow. The witness stated that he knew Shashikala present in court that she was a frequent visitor to the room of Laiq Singh and used to stay with him and that on the last occasion she came to his place in the month of July, 1961, and that at that time there was a child with her. The witness further stated that one or two days after the arrival of Shashikala both Laiq Singh and his wife left the room and went away from there and Shashikala started her residence in that room. He further stated that he saw a long statured man and Shashikala going together at about 5 P.M. on the evening of the occurrence from room No. 123, Darulshafa. Shashikala also took away her child with her. On the third day the witness came to know that Laiq Singh and others were taking away Shashikala for causing her death and that they had been arrested. This witness too was unable to identify Gajendrapal Singh. However, the statement made by Shashikala that she lived in room no. 123 Darulshafa, Lucknow, upto 5 p.m, on 25th July, 1961, is amply corroborated from the statements made by Babu Ram Verma (P.W. 19) and Khaiali Ram (P.W. 23). It is true that the identity of Gajendrapal Singh could not be established from any of the three witnesses examined by the prosecution. However, his identity has amply been established from the statement made by Shashikala herself, corroborated by the statement made by Babu Ram Verma (P.W. 19), that the male who was staying in room No. 123 was a sub-Inspector. The prosecution also established from the statement of J.S. Agarwal (P.W. 14) Deputy Superintendent of Police that in the month of July, 1961, Gajendrapal Singh was posted as a Sub-Inspector at P.S. Titawi, district Muzaffarnagar and had remained on leave from 21st July, 1961, to 29th July. The prosecution also established from the statement of J.S. Agarwal (P.W. 14) Deputy Superintendent of Police that in the month of July, 1961, Gajendrapal Singh was posted as a Sub-Inspector at P.S. Titawi, district Muzaffarnagar and had remained on leave from 21st July, 1961, to 29th July. 1961. That circumstance, in our opinion, amply corroborates the statement made by Shashikala (P.W. 1) that it was, Gajendrapal Singh who had stayed with her in room No. 123 for two or three days upto 25th July. 1961 The statement made by Shashikala that she had left room no. 123, Darul Shafa, Lucknow, in the company of Gajendrapal Singh thus stands corroborated from the deposition of Babu Ram Verma (P.W. 19) and Khaiali Ram (P.W. 23) although none of them has been able to identify Gajendrapal Singh. In our opinion there could be no doubt about the identity of Gajendrapal Singh which has been duly proved from the statement made by Shashikala herself. 59. Thereafter follows the story given by Shashikala of her going to Sudarashan Picture Palace in the company of Gajendrapal Singh, seeing a cinema film there upto 9 or 9.30 p.m. and thereafter boarding the jeep driven by Kishan Chand accused. She was made to do so on the pretext that the jeep would take her to Darulshafa after the driver had attended to some business at Krishna Nagar. There is no independent corroboration regarding this part of the statement made by Shashikala. But as we have seen earlier, there is ample corroboration of her statement that while travelling on the jeep she was gagged and pressed down on the floor of the vehicle by three accused persons, namely. Laiq Singh Vimal Kumar and Tej Bahadur Singh. The police party which stopped the jeep near village Roshnai at about 3 a.m. the same night found that Shashikala was kept in that condition. 60. That circumstance fully corroborates the statement made by Shashikala that she was being taken away from Lucknow against her will. Force must have been applied to her because Dr. U.K Shah who examined her on 26th July, 1961, at 7.20 p.m. found six injuries on her face and in her mouth and they appeared to be about 20 to 22 hours old. These injuries were - (1) One wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the left side of the face below the lower eye-lid. U.K Shah who examined her on 26th July, 1961, at 7.20 p.m. found six injuries on her face and in her mouth and they appeared to be about 20 to 22 hours old. These injuries were - (1) One wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the left side of the face below the lower eye-lid. (2) Wound 1/8" x 1/8" on the right side of the face below the eye. (3) Contusion 1/2" x 1/6" inside the lower lip on the left side just near the third tooth. (4) Contusion 1/4" x 1/4" in the upper lip just in front of the second and third teeth. (5) Contusion 1/6" x 1/6" inside the upper lip in front of the second tooth. (6) The first tooth in the lower jaw was shaking. Blood had coagulated on the gum near that tooth. 61. The investigating officer gave the reason why Shashikala could not be examined earlier. At first she had insisted that she should be examined by a lady doctor but when she was taken before the lady doctor she refused to examine her on the ground that she was not bound to do so as it was not a rape case. She was, therefore, taken to the male hospital again where she could be examined by Dr. U.K. Shah the same evening at 7.20 p.m. In our opinion no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution on that account. The injuries received by Shashikala corroborate her statement on the point that she had been kept gagged and force had been applied to her, while she remained lying on the floor of the jeep. 62. The next corroborating circumstance is the first information report itself which was written out by Shashikala soon after the jeep had been stopped. In that report Shashikala mentioned all the details. There is abundant evidence on the record to show that the first information report had been written by Shashikala immediately after the jeep had been stopped. The suggestion made by the defence that it must have been written at leisure during day time according to the advice given by the investigating staff is not supported by any evidence on the record and has only to be stated in order to be rejected. In our opinion the averments made in the first information report corroborate the prosecution case. 63. In our opinion the averments made in the first information report corroborate the prosecution case. 63. The result is that we find that there is ample corroboration by independent evidence of the statement made by Shashikala on all material points We have, therefore, no hesitation in placing reliance on the statement made by Shashikala. 64. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that even if Shashikala be believed on most of the points the prosecution has failed to make out its case against Gajendrapal Singh and Sm. Ram Maya, wife of Laiq Singh. In our opinion there is good deal of force in this submission so far as Gajendrapal Singh accused is concerned. As against Gajendrapal Singh the statement made by Shashikala (P.W. 1) is corroborated by the following testimony : (1) Gajendrapal Singh remained on leave from July 21 to 29, 1961. It is clear from the testimony of Babu Ram Verma (P.W. 19) that one Sub-Inspector was staying in room no. 123 till 25th July, 1961. It is true that he could not identify that Sub-Inspector. (2) Gajendrapal Singh was at that time posted at a distant place and Shashikala (P.W. 1) residing at Lucknow could hardly know that Gajendrapal Singh was on leave from 21st to 29th July, 1961. Gajendrapal Singh must have been staying in room No. 123 and must have taken out Shashikala on that evening. Otherwise Shashikala could not have named him. She was not likely to name a wrong person and leave out the real culprit. 65. In the circumstances enough corroboration is there to establish that the person who had taken out Shashikala from Room No. 123, Darul Shafa, Lucknow, on the evening of 25th July, 1961, was Gajendrapal Singh accused and none else. 66. Gajendrapal Singh did not dispute that he remained on leave from 21st to 29th July 1961. In our opinion there is no substance in the denial by him of the facts that he stayed in Darul Shafa from 22nd to 25th July, 1961, and that he had taken out Shashikala from that place. However, till that stage no offence had been committed. Shashikala admits that she had gone out with Gajendrapal Singh of her own free will first to Sudarshan Picture Palace and from there to mohalla Krishna Nagar. However, till that stage no offence had been committed. Shashikala admits that she had gone out with Gajendrapal Singh of her own free will first to Sudarshan Picture Palace and from there to mohalla Krishna Nagar. In the absence of any definite evidence about conspiracy between Gajendrapal Singh and the remaining accused person it is difficult to hold Gajendrapal Singh guilty of abduction. There is no doubt a good deal of suspicion against him. However, suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof. Gajendrapal Singh must get benefit of doubt. He was rightly acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 67. However, there is no force in the defence contention so far as Sm. Ram Maya is concerned While explaining the circumstances appearing against her she stated that on the night between 25th and 26th July, 1961, she was going on that jeep with her husband to Shikohabad, her home. Her conduct inside the jeep however, did not reveal that the action which was being taken against Shashikala was against her will Not only that she remained a silent spectator for several hours, but she kept on holding the child of Shashikala without raising any protest and at the time the jeep was stopped she tried to give a false explanation by telling the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sri Banodha and others, that Shashikala was mad. There can be no doubt that she knew that Shashikala (P.W. 1) was being abducted and even after that knowledge she continued to be a member of that unlawful assembly without raising any protest. 68. It is true that she might be acting under the influence of her husband, but that circumstance can have no bearing on the nature of the offence committed. It can only be considered at the time of passing the sentence. 69. Kishan Chand driver also appears to have knowingly participated in the abduction of Shashikala (P.W. 1). The manner in which she was being threatened, gagged, and pressed down inside the jeep in which curtains had been drawn must have left no doubt in his mind that she was being removed either to be killed or to be secretly confined at some place. 70. The manner in which she was being threatened, gagged, and pressed down inside the jeep in which curtains had been drawn must have left no doubt in his mind that she was being removed either to be killed or to be secretly confined at some place. 70. He might have been acting under the direction of his master, but the fact remains that the offence of abduction was being knowingly committed by him in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. 71. There can be no doubt about the participation in the offence by Laiq Singh, Vimal Kumar and Tej Bahadur. Laid Singh must have been very much interested in taking away Shashikala from Lucknow so that she may not be able to tarnish his fair name and create a scene, as she had threatened to do on his failure to marry her. He must, therefore, have been interested in taking her to some place where she could be either kept secretly confined or murdered. Shashikala had joined a service in a school at Lucknow only two or three days before the occurrence and she was likely to lose her job in case she remained away from Lucknow for a considerable period. That could be an additional motive for Laiq Singh and others to have acted in that manner. 72. The main point for consideration is what was the common object of Laiq Singh and others - all of whom were members of the unlawful assembly. The manner in which Shashikala was being carried and the circumstances of the case clearly indicate that their object must have been either to cause her death or to keep her secretly confined at some unknown place for a considerable length of time. The explanation given by the accused persons that they were taking Shashikala to her mother has no substance in it and must be rejected. 73. Section 364 I.P.C. provides that whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 74. 74. The established circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are - (1) Shashikala had illicit intimacy with Laiq Singh from the year 1955; Laiq Singh had made a false promise to her that he would marry her after she had passed her B.A. examination. (2) Before Shashikala could pass her B. A. examination a male child was born to her in mohalla Krishna Nagar where Laiq Singh had sent her to live with a friend. (3) After four or five months she went away from Lucknow and did not return to that place till the month of July. (4) When she came back to Lucknow in the month of July she came determined that Laiq Singh must agree to marry her otherwise she would make things difficult for him. (5) Laiq Singh could not stand her presence in room no. 123, Darulshafa, Lucknow. His wife was also there. Both of them left their room and permitted Shashikala to stay on. (6) Gajendrapal Singh accused who is a close relation of Laiq Singh came on leave from district Muzaffarnagar, stayed with Shashikala till 25th July, 1961 and that evening took Shashikala and her child to Sudarshan Picture Palace to show a cinema film to her and from there to mohalla Krishna Nagar from where she was forcibly abducted. (7) The accused persons who ware in the jeep kept her gagged and pressed down to the floor causing injuries to her in that process. (8) The explanation given by the accused persons is palpably false. 75. The intention of the respondents or the common object of the unlawful assembly can be judged from the acts committed by the accused at the time of the abduction or thereafter till the time of their arrest. Four out of the five accused persons who were in the jeep were relations of Shashikala. Sm. Ram Maya wife of Laiq Singh was also with them. In the circumstances it could not be said with certainty that the common object of the unlawful assembly must have been to take away Sm. Shashikala in order to murder her. But at the same time there can be no doubt that the common object of the unlawful assembly must have been to take Shashikala to be secretly and wrongfully confined. 76. Shashikala in order to murder her. But at the same time there can be no doubt that the common object of the unlawful assembly must have been to take Shashikala to be secretly and wrongfully confined. 76. The intention of the abductors has to be judged from the facts and circumstances of the case including what the abductors did at the time of the abduction and immediately thereafter, in the case of Ghungru v. Emperor, 1936 All LJ 340 : (AIR 1936 AN 360) a girl was removed by force from her father's house at the instance of her husband and was taken to the house of her husband's brother-in-law so that the father may not be able to find her. It was held by Allsop J. that an offence under Section 365 I.P.C was made out. Again in the case of Roshan v. State, 1953 All LJ 421 : (AIR 1954 All 51) where a woman was forcibly removed during night and was kept throughout that night locked secretly in a house in the same abadi to put pressure on her husband to return another woman, it was held by Asthana, J. that an offence under Section 365 I.P.C. was made out. We respectfully agree with the principle underlying both these cases. Where the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the intention of the abductors was to secretly confine the abducted person against her will there could be no doubt that all the ingredients of Section 365 I.P.C. were made out In the case before us we find that Shashikala had been forcibly and secretly removed in a covered jeep during night and while she was being taken from Lucknow on Kanpur-Kalpi Road she was kept gagged and pressed to the floor of the vehicle so that she may not be able to raise any alarm and her whereabouts may not be known to others. In such circumstances even though benefit of doubt may be given to the accused persons that their intention was not to cause her death, there can be no doubt that their intention must have been to wrongfully and secretly confine her. All the accused persons who were in the jeep are, therefore, proved to have committed offences punishable under Sections 365/149 and 147 I.P.C 77. All the accused persons who were in the jeep are, therefore, proved to have committed offences punishable under Sections 365/149 and 147 I.P.C 77. There has been a compromise between the complainant and all the accused persons and the same has been duly verified by the Registrar of this Court. The offences other than those punishable under Sections 147 and 365/149 I.P.C. are compoundable with the permission of the Court. We see no reason to withhold that permission and grant the same. 78. In the result, the Government Appeal is partly allowed. All the respondents, with the exception of Gajendrapal Singh (against whom the Government Appeal is dismissed) are convicted under Section s 147 and 365/149 I.P.C. They cannot be convicted for other offences in regard to which there has been a valid compromise between the parties concerned. Laiq Singh who appears to be the main offender is sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 365/149 I.P.C. and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C. The remaining respondents seem to have acted under the influence of Laiq Singh, We do not consider it proper to send Sm. Ram Maya to jail in the first instance. She is, therefore, sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 250 or in default three months' rigorous imprisonment under each of the two counts mentioned above Vimal Kumar, Tej Bahadur and Kishan Chand are each sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C. and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 365/149 I P.C The sentences of all the accused persons shall run concurrently. Sm. Ram Maya is allowed one month's time to pay the fine. 79. Respondents Laiq Singh, Vimal Kumar, Tej Bahadur and Kishan Chand shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentences. Appeal partly allowed.