JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal filed by Kshetrimayum Raghu Singh of Singjamei Kshetri Leikai and Leisangthem Ibopishak Singh of Singjamei Leisangthem Leikai, against their conviction under S. 366 I. P.C. and sentences that should undergo R. I. for 3 years and 2 years respectively. 2. The appellants and one Maibam Bheigya Singh were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, for an offence under S. 366 I. P.C. The first appellant Raghu Singh was also further charged under S. 376 I. P.C. The case of the prosecution is that in the early hours of 27-10-1962 when Moirangthem Ningol Rani Devi (P. W. 6) came out of her house in Kwakeithel, the appellants and some others falsely represented to her that her lover Khumbongmayum Bali Singh (P. W. 2) was waiting for her and thus induced her by deceitful means to go with them with intent that she might be compelled to marry the appellant Raghu Singh against her will or that she might be seduced or forced to have illicit intercourse with him and that when P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) hesitated to go with them, they caught hold of her and gagged her mouth. It is also the case of the prosecution that they took her to Ningomthongjao, Langthabal and lastly to Basikhong, that on the information given to the Police Station, Imphal, on 28-10-1962 by P. W. 4 (Moirangthem Nabakishore Singh), the elder brother of the victim, the Police rescued the girl and arrested the second appellant Ibopishak Singh on 30.10.1962, that the first appellant Raghu Singh absconded and that he was arrested on 18-12-1962. After the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi), the victim was more than 14 years of age and that the charge under S. 376 I. P.C. was not made out. He convicted the appellants under S. 366 I. P.C. on the ground that they abducted P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) with intent to seduce her to have illicit intercourse with the first appellant, Raghu Singh and sentenced the first appellant to undergo R. I. for 3 years and the second appellant to undergo R. I. for 2 years and acquitted the first appellant of the offence under S. 376 I. P.C. He acquitted the other accused Bheigya Singh. 3. 3. In Manipur State there in no offence of rape under S. 375(5) I. P.C. unless the girl is 14 years or less in age. In the present case the learned Additional Sessions Judge found on the evidence that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was aged 15 or 16 years at the time of the occurrence. This finding was not challenged in the appeal. So, the question for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants are guilty of the offence of abduction under S. 366 I. P.C. The evidence of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) the victim is that she was in love with P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) that the appellants are the friends of P. W. 2 (Bali Singh), that 27-10-1962 was fixed as the date for her elopment with P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) and that the said date was fixed with the knowledge of the first appellant (Raghu Singh). She further deposed that in the early hours of 27-10-1962, the appellants and some others forcibly took her away from the gate of her house by falsely telling her that they were taking her to P. W. 2 (Bali Singh), but that P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) was nowhere, that she was confined in several houses in different villages, namely, Ningomthongjao, Langthabal and Basikhong, that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) had sexual intercourse with her 3 times on 2 days by threatening her and that she was ultimately rescued by the Police on 30-12-1962. Her evidence shows that she did not raise any alarm but that she was a willing party to the elopment. But, her conduct in not raising any alarm is not inconsistent with her evidence that she was under the impression that she was being taken to her lover P. W. 2 (Bali Singh). 4. Though, P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) turned hostile and deposed that he did not love P. W. 6 (Rani Devi), Exts. A/4, A/5 and A/11 prove the case of the prosecution that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was in love with P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) and that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) purported to play the role of a match-maker. Ext. A/11 is a love letter addressed to P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) by P. W. 2 (Bali Singh). A/4, A/5 and A/11 prove the case of the prosecution that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was in love with P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) and that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) purported to play the role of a match-maker. Ext. A/11 is a love letter addressed to P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) by P. W. 2 (Bali Singh). It shows that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was in love with P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) and proposed to marry him and that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) was acting as a go between. Ext. A/4 is a letter addressed by the first appellant (Raghu Singh) to P. W. 6 (Rani Devi), wherein the first appellant (Raghu Singh) informed P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) should be ready on 15-10-1982 for elopment with P. W. 2 (Bili Singh) and that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) was very anxious to see the union between P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) and P. W. 6 (Rani Devi). Ext. A/5 is another letter written by the first appellant (Raghu Singh) to P. W. 6 (Rani Devi), informing her that P. W. 2 (Bill Singh) wag pining away for her and that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) was anxious to make his friends, namely, P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) and P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) meet frequently. Thus, Exts. A/4, A/5 and A/11 go to show that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) loved P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) and that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) was acting as a go-between or a match-maker, arranging for meetings between them. 5. P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) denied having written Ext. A/11. The first appellant (Raghu Singh) denied having written Exts. A/4 and A/5. The evidence of P. W. 4 (Moirangthem Nabakishore Singh), the complainant, shows that because he learnt that his sister P. W. 6 (Rani Davi) was in love with P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) he admitted her in a school in a different locality namely, T. G. High School, that on 27-10- 1962 he did not find his sister, that he searched for her and found at the gate a chudder that he saw a letter in a book of hers, that he filed the said letter with his report Ext. A/3 before the Officer in charge of Imphal Police Station, that he also found two letters in the suit-case of his sister and that they were seized by the Police under Ext. A/2 (seizure list) dated 28 10.1962. So, the 3 letters in question came to light on 28-10-1962 itself. They cannot be said to have been got up for the purpose of the present case. The evidence of P. W. 2 shows that she received several love letters from P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) and several letters from the first appellant (Raghu Singh). She identified the hand writing of P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) in Ext. A/11 and the hand writing of the first appellant (Raghu Singh) in Exts. A/4 and A/5. Ext. A/4 bears the signature of the first appellant (Raghu Singh). In Ext. A/5 the portion of the letter which bears his signature was torn off. Ext. A/11 does not bear the signature of P. W. 2 (Bali Singh). But, as P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was habitually receiving letters from P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) and the first appellant (Raghu Singh) and as they were having correspondence with one another, her evidence regarding the identity of the hand-writing of P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) in Ext. A/11 and the hand-writing of the first appellant in Ex. A/4 and Ext. A/5 is relevant under S. 47 of the Evidence Act. Even on a comparison of the admitted signatures of the first appellant (Raghu Singh) on the papers in the Court with that in Ext. A/4, it can be seen that they are identical. So, there is no doubt that P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) wrote Ext. A/11, while the first appellant wrote Exts. A/4 and A/5. They gave an indication that P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) was planning for elopment with P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) and that the first appellant was arranging for the same. As such, the evidence of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) that she was abducted by the appellants by deceitful means by telling her that P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) was waiting for her and that, therefore, she did not raise any objection or alarm is true. 6. With regard to the abduction and the treatment meted out to her by the appellants, there is only the solitary direct testimony of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi). 6. With regard to the abduction and the treatment meted out to her by the appellants, there is only the solitary direct testimony of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi). The Additional Sessions Judge went wrong in relying on Ext. A/10 (her entire statement) recorded under S. 164, Criminal P.C., immediately after she was rescued by the Police as corroborating evidence. Under S. 157 of the Evidence Act, Ext. A/10 could be relied upon only after P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) gave evidence on the points, which were sought to be corroborated by Ext. A/10. The general principle is that before the corroborative evidence is admitted, the evidence sought to be corroborated must be given. Vide Note 19 at page 330, Vol. 7 of AIR Manual Civil and Criminal Second Edition, Sunika Munda v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Pat 19, Muthu Goundan v. Chinniah Goundan, AIR 1937 Mad 861 , The King v. Nga Myo, AIR 1938 Rang 177 (FB), In re C. W. Casse, AIR 1948 Mad 489 and Public Prosecutor (Andhra) v. Kuraba Sanjeevamma, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 567. In Emperor v. Manu Chik, AIR 1938 Pat 290 and In re, Gopisetti Chinna Venkata Subbaiah, AIR 1955 Andhra 161 it was held that statement of a witness obtained under S. 164, Criminal P.C. should be acted upon with caution, as it leads to an inference that there was a time when the Police thought that the witness might change the version. So, the lower Court should not have relied upon Ext. A/10 wholesale as evidence against the appellants. 7. But, a raped woman is not an accomplice and it is not absolutely necessary that there should be corroboration of her evidence. However, a large volume of case law has grown up which has hardened into a rule of prudence that there should be some additional evidence rendering the story of the prosecutrix probable and showing that it is reasonably safe to act upon it. Vide, In re, B. Chinnappa, AIR 1951 Mad 760 , Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 S C 54, State Govt. M.P. v. Sheodayal Gurudayal, AIR 1956 Nag 8 and Sidheswar Ganguly v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 S C 143. The conduct of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) after the occurrence in immediately making the statement as per Ext. M.P. v. Sheodayal Gurudayal, AIR 1956 Nag 8 and Sidheswar Ganguly v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 S C 143. The conduct of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) after the occurrence in immediately making the statement as per Ext. A/10 is relevant under S. 8 of the Evidence Act as supporting the truth of her version, though not as evidence of the facts complained of but as evidence of the consistency of her conduct with the story narrated by her in the witness-box. Also, her evidence that she complained to her mother and to the wife of P. W. 4 (Nabakishore Singh) that she was abducted and seduced supports her evidence. Besides, Exts. A/4, A/5 and A/11 further support her case that she was abducted by deceitful means and seduced to illicit intercourse. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants urged the following contentions to show that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. His first contention is that in Ext. A/3 (complaint petition) filed by P. W. 4 (Nabakishore Singh) on 28-10-1962, P. W. 4 (Nabakishore Singh) mentioned that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was abducted by P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) and some others, but that he did not mention the names of the appellants and the other accused and that therefore, the case of the prosecution against the appellants is an afterthought. P. W. 4 (Nabakishore Singh) explained why he mentioned the name of P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) alone in Ext. A/8. His evidence is that he was aware that his sister P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was loving P. W. 2 (Bali Singh), that, therefore, he admitted her in T. G. High School, that when he searched the books of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) he found a letter (Ext. A/11) which showed that she was abducted by P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) and that therefore, he mentioned the name of P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) alone in Ext. A/3. Subsequently, he learnt that she was abducted by the appellants. This shows that P. W. 4 (Nabakishore Singh) was actuated by bona fide belief and not by any vindictiveness. It is the case of the appellants that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) eloped with P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) for the purpose of marriage. A/3. Subsequently, he learnt that she was abducted by the appellants. This shows that P. W. 4 (Nabakishore Singh) was actuated by bona fide belief and not by any vindictiveness. It is the case of the appellants that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) eloped with P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) for the purpose of marriage. If P. W. 4 (Nabakishore Singh) had known that his sister had eloped with the first appellant (Raghu Singh), there was no reason for him not to mention his name in Ext. A/3 but to mention that P. W. 2 (Bali Singh) abducted her. As such, the fact that P. W. 4 (Nabakishore Singh) did not mention the names of the appellants in Ext. A/3 does not throw any doubt over the case of the prosecution regarding the appellants. 9. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the parents of the victims were not examined, that the owners of the house in the various villages, where the victim was confined, were not examined to show that she was confined against her will and that the non-examination of material witnesses raises a presumption against the truth of the prosecution person. He relied on Sri Kishan Rathi v. Mondal Bros and Co., (P) Ltd. AIR 1967 Cal 75 . It is not correct to state that the prosecution did not examine any one of the house owners. The prosecution examined P. W. 3 Thongam Kumar Singh of Ningomthongiae, one of the owners of a house wherein P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was first confined. But, he turned hostile and he was cross-examined by the prosecution. It is, therefore, evident that the owners of the houses wherein the victim was confined must have been the friends of the appellants and were unwilling to depose against them. With regard to the non-examination of the parents of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi), the latter admitted that her mother was aware that she was in love with P. W. 2 (Bali Singh). As I hold that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was a willing party to the elopment, the non-examination of the mother of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) is not fatal to the case. The evidence of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) shows that, her father had abandoned the family after P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was born. As I hold that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was a willing party to the elopment, the non-examination of the mother of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) is not fatal to the case. The evidence of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) shows that, her father had abandoned the family after P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was born. So, there is no substance in the contention of the appellants that the father of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was not examined. 10. The third contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the evidence of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) shows that she shared the bed with the first appellant (Raghu Singh) and allowed the first appellant (Raghu Singh) to have intercourse with her, that she did not raise any alarm or objection, that thus she consented and that the subsequent consent condoned the offence of abduction. He relied on Note 7 at page 1082, Vol. III of the Penal Law of India by Dr. Sir Hari Singh Gour (1962 - 7th Edition) The learned author states therein that it needs scarcely be added that subsequent consent condones abduction, though not kidnapping. But, the learned author further states that the consent must be free and not induced by fraud. The evidence of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) is that she did not raise any alarm at the time when the first appellant (Raghu Singh) committed sexual intercourse with her. But her further evidence is that she did not take her food on all the 4 days when she was confined, that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) had threatened her with dire consequences and that she was helpless. A mere act of helpless resignation in the face of inevitable compulsion, quiescence, non-resistance, or passive giving in, when volitional faculty is either clouded by fear or vitiated by duress, cannot be deemed to be 'consent' as understood in law. Consent on the part of a woman, as a defence to an allegation of seduction requires voluntary participation, not only after the exercise of intelligence, based on the knowledge, significance and moral quality of the act, but after having freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent. Submission of her body under the influence of fear or terror is no consent. There is a difference between consent and submission. Every consent involves a submission. But every submission does not involve consent. Submission of her body under the influence of fear or terror is no consent. There is a difference between consent and submission. Every consent involves a submission. But every submission does not involve consent. She is said to consent only when she freely agress to submit, while in free and unconstrained possession of her physical and moral power to act in a manner she wanted. It involves a voluntary and concious acceptance of what is proposed to be done by another and concurred in by the former. Vide Rao Harnarain Singh Sheoji Singh v. The State, AIR 1958 Punj 123 and in re, Anthony, AIR 1960 Mad 308 . So, P. W. 6 (Rani Devi), the victim could not be said to have "consented" to the first appellant (Raghu Singh) having sexual intercourse with her under the circumstances of this case. 11. The case of the first appellant (Raghu Singh) is that P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) had eloped with him according to an agreed plan to marry him, that while he was making arrangements for informing the guardian of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) about the elopment and for marriage he was arrested and that the girl was rescued but that he did not abduct her. It is his case that he had sexual intercourse with her during the 4 days on 27-10-1962 to 30-10-1962 with her consent. But, there are several circumstances, which go to show that his case cannot be believed. Firstly, Gandharba form of marriage is recognised in Manipur as a valid marriage under certain circumstance. Vide cl. (d) page 5 of Manipuri Customs (codifed by the Codification Committee) and printed by the Government Press Manipur Administration in 1960. Mutual consent is the essence of Gandharba form of marriage. Usually the girl elopas with her lover and, after that, consent of the father or the guardian is obtained. Without such consent the marriage is not recognised by the Society. So, sanction of the father or the guardian of the girl is necessary after elopment. No doubt, in extreme cases Gandharba form of marriage is recognised even without the consent of the father or the guardian. But, such cases are rare. The Courts have recognised the Manipur Customs codified by the Codification Committee-vide Puvam Liklai Singh Bhabando Singh v. Moiranthem Maipak Singh. No doubt, in extreme cases Gandharba form of marriage is recognised even without the consent of the father or the guardian. But, such cases are rare. The Courts have recognised the Manipur Customs codified by the Codification Committee-vide Puvam Liklai Singh Bhabando Singh v. Moiranthem Maipak Singh. AIR 1956 Manipur 18 and Gosaimayum Ongbi Ketuki Devi v. Jayantakumar Goswami, AIR 1964 Manipur 14 . Now, in the present instance if the case of the first appellant (Raghu Singh) is true, then on 28-10-1962 he should have caused information of elopment given to the mother or the brother P. W. 4 (Nabakishore Singh) of the girl. On the other hand, his conduct negatives any such intention on his part to marry P. W. 6 (Rani Devi). He shifted P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) from village to village. At first, he took her to a house in Ningomthongjao. Then, he shifted her to Langthabal and finally he shifted her to Basikhong. If the first appellant (Raghu Singh) was really bona fide, he would have kept her in the house in Ningomthongjao and then made his friends inform the guardian of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) about his elopment with her. So, this is a strong circumstance which belies his case. Secondly, when P. W. 7 (Soraisam Mani Singh) A. S. I. attached to Imphal Police Station went to rescue P. W. 6 (Rani Devi), the first appellant (Raghu Singh) was absent. The second appellant (Ibopishak Singh) was present. P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) came out of the house and P. W. 7 (Mani Singh) took her and arrested the second appellant (Ibopishak Singh) and handed them over to the Investigating Officer. The explanation of the first appellant (Raghu Singh) of his absence is that he went out to arrange for a formal marriage. But, neither the mother nor P. W. 4 (Nabakishore Singh) was informed about the elopment. It is difficult to believe that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) was busy in making arrangements for marriage just before the arrival of the Police party. It is clear that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) made himself scarce to avoid arrest, by running away from the house. Thirdly, the first appellant (Raghu Singh) absconded for a period of about 11/2 months. It is clear that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) made himself scarce to avoid arrest, by running away from the house. Thirdly, the first appellant (Raghu Singh) absconded for a period of about 11/2 months. He was arrested by P. W. 8 (Oinam Mani Singh) the Officer in-charge of the Singjamei Outpost, when he was bathing in Imphal river near his house. If the first appellant (Raghu (Singh) was really earnest to marrying P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) he would have surrendered himself before the Police immediately after the occurrence and would not have made himself scarce for about 11/2 months. Fourthly, marriage by elopment is one of the customary forms of marriages. The first appellant (Raghu Singh) would not have been afraid of any criminal liability. He would have made the victim admit that there was a proposal for marriage and both of them would have married. The victim would not have let down the appellants, if she willingly eloped with the first appellant. 12. The case of the second appellant (Ibopishak Singh) is that he had gone to the house, where the victim was confined, to see his friend viz. the first appellant (Raghu Singh). The evidence of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) that the second appellant (Ibopishak Singh) helped the first appellant (Raghu Singh) in her abduction and in confining her in several houses in various villages, appears to be true, inasmuch as the second appellant (Ibopishak Singh) is admittedly a close friend of the first appellant (Raghu Singh). It is also hardly believable that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) alone could have abducted the girl in the early hours of 27-10-1962 without the help of his friends. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that in any event the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt, as the evidence is not clinching. It is also hardly believable that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) alone could have abducted the girl in the early hours of 27-10-1962 without the help of his friends. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that in any event the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt, as the evidence is not clinching. Though it is a well-known proposition that in the absence of proof of the guilt, an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, he relied on Ram Balak Singh v. The State, AIR 1964 Patna 62 and Babu Singh v. State of Punjab, 1964 (1) Cri L T 566 (SC) and Ganga Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1965 Cri L J 574 (Raj), Also, he cited Hanumant Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 and The State v. Dabnu, AIR 1957 Him Pra 52 in support of his contention that circumstantial evidence must be such as to prove the whole chain of circumstantial evidence so as to bring home the guilt of the accused. But, I do not find any circumstance in the case which throws any doubt over the case of the prosecution. P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) was abducted by the appellants by deceitful means on the plea that he would find her lover P. W. 2 (Bali Singh). But, the first appellant (Raghu Singh) had the intention to seduce her for illicit intercourse. So, the ingredients of the offence of abduction under S. 366 I. P.C. are made out. Vide also In re Khalandar Saheb, AIR 1955 Andhra 59 and Sm. Ram Devi v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 S C 574 as to when the offence under S, 366 I. P.C. of abduction of a woman to seduce her for illicit intercourse is made out. 14. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants were aged less than 21 years on the date of their trial and that under S. 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act (Central Act XX of 1958), the lower Court should not have sentenced them to imprisonment, but that the Court should have dealt with them under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act. 3 and 4 of the Act. He relied on Thangjam Irabot Singh v. The State, 1961 (2) Cri L J 583 (Manipur) where it was held that it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself in the cage of an accused, who is under 21 years of age, that it would not be desirable to deal with him under S. 4 of the Act before sentencing him to undergo imprisonment and that the trial Court has no jurisdiction even if it finds him guilty, to punish him straightway to imprisonment under S. 6 of the Act. Vide also Suja v. The State 1966 Cri L J 735 (Raj) and Bisikesan Sana v. The State, AIR 1967 Orissa 4. In the present case the record shows that the first appellant (Raghu Singh) was stated to have been aged 22 when he was examined by the Committing Magistrate. Vide Ext. A/15. The second appellant (Ibopishak Singh) was stated to have been aged 20 years at that time. Vide Ext. A/16. There is no proof that the first appellant was under 21 years of age at the time of the trial. But, even assuming that they were aged 21 years, the circumstance of the case indicate that a deterrent sentence is called for. The appellants marred the career of P. W. 6 (Rani Devi) by seducing her. They brought infamy to the family of the complainant Nabakishore Singh (P. W. 4). The observations made in para 15 of the judgment in AIR 1955 Andhra 59 are very much pertinent to the facts of the present case. So, the facts and the circumstances of the present case do not warrant imposition of either a lenient sentence or release of the appellants under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellants under S. 366 I. P.C. and awarded suitable sentences. 15. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.