JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal filed by the Government of Manipur against the judgment of acquittal dated 30-9-1964 of the respondent of the charges under Ss. 366 and 376 I. P. C. in Sessions Trial No. 12/1 of 1964 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur. 2. The case of the prosecution is that P. W. 3 a girl Yangambam Ningol Sumati Devi of Wangjing was aged about 14 years, that she was living in her sister's house in Takhelambam Leikai, that on 20-9-1963 she was brought by P. W. 1 her brother Yangambam Biren Singh in his jeep, that P. W. 2 (Ibemhal Devi) also accompanied her that in the evening of 20-9-1963, D. W. 1 the respondent, who was then working as a driver of a bus, which was plying from Wangjing to Imphal, offered to take the prosecutrix P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) to Imphal in his bus on the next day and that as the respondent was familiar with the members of the family of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi), her father agreed to send her in his bus. In the morning of 21-9-1963, the respondent brought his bus to the gate of the house of parents of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi).P. Ws. 2 and 3 (Ibemhal Devi and Sumati Devi) got into the bus. After the bus proceeded to some distance, two persons by name, Yaiskul Singh and Angahal Singh also got into the Bus. The spare driver Anou Singh was in the bus. But, on the way the respondent drove the bus through a lane leading to his village Khangabok on the pretext of picking up a passenger. After he drove the bus to a distance of about 1/4 mile, he dragged down P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) from the bus inspite of her resistance and alarm. The respondent directed Anou Singh to drive away the bus along with P. W. 2 : (Ibemhal Devi) to Imphal. The respondent forcibly took away P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) to Khangabok, Thoubalking and and other villages and committed rape on her. On receipt of information from P. W. 1 (Biren Singh), in the evening of 21-9-1963, P. W. 9, A. S. I. of Thoubal Police Station started investigation. The respondent forcibly took away P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) to Khangabok, Thoubalking and and other villages and committed rape on her. On receipt of information from P. W. 1 (Biren Singh), in the evening of 21-9-1963, P. W. 9, A. S. I. of Thoubal Police Station started investigation. P. W. 10 (Nelson) S. I. of Police attached to Imphal Police Station, ultimately traced D. W. 1 the respondent and P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) in the house of D. W. 6 (Laimayum Ningthem Sarma) on 25-9-1963 and rescued the girl. P. W. 11 (Ch-Priyokumar Singh) the investigating Officer got P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) examined by P. W. 4 (Dr. Ibema Devi) Medical Officer. P. W. 11 (Priyokumar Singh) filed charge sheet against the respondent and 3 others under Sections 366 and 376 I. P. C. 3. The Committing Magistrate however discharged the 3 co-accused of the respondent and committed the latter to the Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against D. W. 1 the respondent under S. 366 and 376 I. P. C. The Prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. 4. The case of the respondent, who is a widower having a daughter of the same age as P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) is that P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) had been in love with him for about 4 years prior to the occurrence, that in the morning of 20-9-1963 when P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) was alone in the jeep of her brother P. W. 1 (Biren Singh) in Imphal, she saw D. W 1 in his bus in the bus stand nearby and told him that her parents wanted to give her in marriage to somebody else whom she did not like and that he should meet her in the morning of 21-9-1963 in her parents' house in Wangjing, as she proposed to elope with him. It is also the case of the respondent that, accordingly, she left the house of her parents in the bus brought by the respondent in the morning of 21-9-1963, that he wanted to marry her, that he enjoyed sexual inter-course with her consent in Khangabok and Thoubalkhong, that he went from village to village at the instance of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) to avoid her rescue, that she was made to change her mind and that he did not commit any offence. He examined himself as D. W. 1 and his witnesses as D. Ws. 2 to 8. 5. As the prosecution alleges that the respondent was entrusted with P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) for being taken to Imphal, the lower Court framed the first charge for an offence of abduction punishable under S. 366, I. P. C. The second charge was for the offence of rape punishable under S. 376 I. P. C. Manipur Act XXX of 1953 prescribed different ages for the girls for the offences under S. 366 and S. 375, I. P. C. For an offence under S. 366, I. P. C, the girl must be under 15 years of age. For the offence of rape under S. 375, I. P. C. the girl should be under 14 years of age. Now, the ages have since been raised to 18 and 16 years respectively by an Act of Manipur Legislature, to which the President gave his assent on 29-12-1966. As the offence of rape was said to have been committed prior to that date, it was for the prosecution to prove that P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) was under 14 years of age on 21-9-1963. 6. After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge wrote a curious judgment. He held that D. W. 1 the respondent took away P. W. 3 (Vasumati Devi) forcibly by inducement but that she willingly allowed the respondent to have sexual intercourse with her, that she was aged more than 14 years at the time of the occurrence and that the respondent did not commit any offence. Accordingly, he acquitted the respondent. Hence the present appeal by the prosecution. 7. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of the case, it is necessary to bear in mind the approach which should be made by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. The Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that even though this is an appeal against a judgment of acquittal, still the evidence should be reviewed as in the case of an appeal against a judgment of conviction and relied on Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 , Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715 , Ministerio Publico v Filomemo, AIR 1967 Goa 51 and Sher Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1412 . As against them, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on a number of rulings to show what principles should guide the High Court in considering an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. Firstly, he urged that heavy onus lies on the prosecution to show that the judgment of acquittal is incorrect. He relied on Koti Darbar v. Ram Chand, AIR 1949 Him Pra 15, State v. Vithal Maruti Patil, AIR 1953 Bom 339, Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 39 , State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chandan Lal, AIR 1955 Him Pra 26, Public Prosecutor v. Rama Iyengar, AIR 1955 NUC (Mad) 3922, Nisar Ali v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 366 and Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 . Secondly, be urged that the High Court should give due weight to the findings of fact of the trial Court and relied on AIR 1949 Him Pra 15, AIR 1953 Bom 369 , Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 SC 122 , AIR 1955 NUC (Mad) 3922 and AIR 1955 Him Pra 26 (already referred to) and also relied on AIR 1953 SC 122 , AIR 1956 SC 217 , State v. Dhanpat Chamra, AIR 1960 Pat 582 and A. M. Kutty Sankaran Nair v. P. V. Kumaran Nair, AIR 1965 Ker 161 . Then, his third argument is that the presumption of innocence of the respondent was re-inforced by his acquittal and cited Puran v. State of Punjab (1), AIR 1953 SC 459 , AIR 1954 SC 39 and Bansidhar Mohanty v. State of Orissa, AIR 1955 SC 585 . His fourth contention is that the findings and decision of the trial Court should not be lightly interfered with in the appeal and relied on Sheo Swarup v. King-Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2), AIR 1956 SC 217 , Ramianam Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1956 SC 643 , Bhagwan Das v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 589 , M. G. Agarwal (In Cri. A. No. 176 of 59) and M. K. Kulkarni (In Cri. A. No. 40 of 1960) v. State of Maharashtra (In both the Appeals) AIR 1963 SC 200 and Noor Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 SC 286 . 8. A. No. 176 of 59) and M. K. Kulkarni (In Cri. A. No. 40 of 1960) v. State of Maharashtra (In both the Appeals) AIR 1963 SC 200 and Noor Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 SC 286 . 8. In the latest decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 1412 , the power of the High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal and the matters to be kept in view had been laid down. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the previous rulings on the subject. It was held that the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal are in no way different from those in an appeal against conviction, that the High Court can consider the evidence and weigh the probabilities and that it can also accept the evidence rejected by the lower Court and reject the evidence accepted by it, unless the trial Court relied on its observation of the demeanour of any particular witness. It was, however, held that in departing from the conclusions of the lower Court, the High Court must pay due attention to the grounds on which the acquittal is based and repel those grounds satisfactorily, bearing in mind always that an accused starts with a presumption of innocence in his favour and that this presumption cannot certainly be less strong after the acquittal. It was finally held that if these matters are properly kept in view and the acquittal is reversed, there can be no objection because our criminal jurisdiction empowers the High Court to reverse an acquittal. So, bearing these points in view, the evidence let in by the prosecution as well as the respondent has to be scrutinised. 9. According to P. Ws. 1 and 3 (Biren Singh and Sumati Devi), P.W. 3 (Sumati Devi) was brought by P. W. 1 (Biren Singh) from their sister's house in Imphal on 20-9-1963 in the jeep of P. W. 1 (Biren Singh). 9. According to P. Ws. 1 and 3 (Biren Singh and Sumati Devi), P.W. 3 (Sumati Devi) was brought by P. W. 1 (Biren Singh) from their sister's house in Imphal on 20-9-1963 in the jeep of P. W. 1 (Biren Singh). It is the case of the prosecution that instead of asking P. W. 1 (Biren Singh) to take her back in the same jeep on 21-9-1963 to his sister's house in Imphal, his father entrusted P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) to D. W. 1 the respondent in the evening of 20-9-1963 and also in the morning of 21-9-1963 and that thus it happened that P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) was made to go in the bus of D. W. 1, the respondent. But, P. W. 1 (Biren Singh) admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present at the time of the alleged entrustment. P. W. 8 (Tangambam Tombirei Devi) the mother of P. W. 1 (Biren Singh) and P. W. 3 (Sumati Davi) did not speak to the alleged entrustment of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) by her husband to D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma). The father of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) was not examined. It was stated by the Assistant Public Prosecutor that the father was ill and that, therefore, he was not examined. But, he should have been examined on commission. He is a material witness and the non-examination of a material witness throws doubt over the case of the prosecution. Vide Narain v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 484 and Sri Kishan Rathi v. Mondal Bros, and Co. (P) Ltd., AIR 1967 Cal 75 . Thus, there is only the evidence of P. W. 3 the prosecutrix herself and there is no trustworthy evidence to show that she was entrusted by her father to the respondent to be taken to Imphal in his bus. [After discussing evidence in para 10 the judgment proceeded.] 11. Generally stated, an abducted woman is not an accomplice and her evidence does not require corroboration. [After discussing evidence in para 10 the judgment proceeded.] 11. Generally stated, an abducted woman is not an accomplice and her evidence does not require corroboration. But the rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the Judge, before a conviction without corroboration can be sustained. Vide page 2555 of Gour's Penal Law of India-Vol. 3-8th Edition-1966 and pages 982 to 984 of Ratanlal's Law of Crimes 21st edition, 1966. Vide also Dhaneshwar Thakur v. State, AIR 1958 Pat 412 : 1958 Cri L J 929 and Sideshwar Ganguly v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 SC 143 . In the latter case it was held that a girl, who is the victim of an outrageous act, is, generally speaking, not an accomplice though the rule of prudence requires that the evidence of a proseoutrix should be corroborated before any conviction can be based upon it. It was also held that it is well established that the nature and extent of corroboration, necessary, vary with the circumstances of each case, but that the nature of the corroborative evidence should be such as to lend assurance that the evidence of the prosecutrix can be safely acted upon. Even the case cited by the Assistant Government Advocate, namely, Koli Tapu Dharamshi v. State, AIR 1955 Sau 96 is to the same effect. In Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , it was held that the "evidence has to be weighed and not counted" inasmuch as according to S. 134, Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any act. But, as already stated as a matter of prudence some corroboration of evidence of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) is necessary. 12. The first piece of corroborative evidence relied . on by the prosecution is that on 26-9-1963, the statement of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) under S. 164, Criminal P. C. as per Ext. A/3 was recorded by P. W. 5 (Ksh. 12. The first piece of corroborative evidence relied . on by the prosecution is that on 26-9-1963, the statement of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) under S. 164, Criminal P. C. as per Ext. A/3 was recorded by P. W. 5 (Ksh. Gokulchand Singh) S. D. M. and that inasmuch as P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) narrated the same story, her conduct is corroborative evidence of the truth of her version. D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) examined his co-accused D. W. 7 (Thokchom Yaiskul Singh) and D. W. 8 (Ningthoujam Angabal Singh), to show that P. W. 11 (Ch. Priyokumar Singh) investigating Officer tutored her in the Police lock-up in the night of 25-9-1963 before he produced her before P. W. 5 (Gokulchand Singh) to record her statement under S. 164, Criminal P. C. Their evidence must be said to be interested as they were co-accused of the respondent. But, the fact remains that P.W.3 (Sumati Devi) was produced before P. W. 5 (Gokulchand Singh) after she was detained in the Police lock-up in the night of 25-9-1963. Exhibit A/3 is no substantive evidence against the respondent. Nor can it be said to be reliable evidence of the subsequent conduct of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) under S. 8 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as her statement was recorded after she was kept in and produced from the Police lock-up. Vide Emperor v. Manu Chik, AIR 1938 Pat 290 where it was held that a statement of a witness obtained under S. 164, Criminal P. C. always raises a suspicion that it has not been voluntarily made. Vide also In re, Gopisetti Chinna Venkata Subbaiah, AIR 1955 Andhra 161, where it was held that the testimony of an eye-witness recorded under S. 164, Criminal P. C., after he was kept in the Police custody for 5 days, was inherently improbable and that it could not be acted upon. (After discussing the evidence in Paras. 13 and 14 the judgment proceeds.) 15. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that because P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) was forced to have illicit intercourse with the respondent, her consent was not a valid one, that mere submission was no consent and that even if there was subsequent consent after the forcible intercourse, the respondent is still liable to be convicted. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that because P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) was forced to have illicit intercourse with the respondent, her consent was not a valid one, that mere submission was no consent and that even if there was subsequent consent after the forcible intercourse, the respondent is still liable to be convicted. He relied on Prafulla Kumar Bose v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Cal 209 Haridas Pillai v. State, AIR 1952 Trav.Co 379, Rao Harnarain Singh Sheoji Singh v. State, AIR 1958 Punj 123, Arjan Ram Naurata Ram v. State, AIR 1960 Punj 303 and In re, Anthony, AIR 1960 Mad 308 . The facts of the present case differ and show that P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) voluntarily surrendered herself and her chastity to the respondent, and followed him from village to village. No offence of abduction under S. 366, Penal Code can be said to have been committed in view of the consent given by P. W. 3 the prosecutrix. Vide also the rulings in Bishnath Prasad v. Emperor, AIR 1948 Oudh 1; Gurdas v. State, AIR 1953 Punj 258 and Aswini Kumar Roy v. State, AIR 1955 Cal 100 . 16. Then, with regard to the offence under S. 376, Penal Code, there is no tangible evidence to show that P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) was under 14 in age when the occurrence took place. This aspect of the case was discussed by the lower Court in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the judgment. P. W. 1 (Y. Biren Singh), 3(Sumati Devi) and 8 (Tombirei Devi) gave the age of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) approximately. No horoscope was produced to show the correct age of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi). Even P. W. 4 (Dr. Y. Ibema Devi) the Lady Doctor was not asked to examine P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) scientifically with reference to the ossification of the bones, growth of the teeth etc. to determine her age. Medical evidence about the growth of the teeth, pubic and axillary heirs, growth of the breasts, height and weight of the girl are all relevant in fixing her age. Vide page 2551 of Gour's Penal Law of India, Vol. III 1966 edition. But there is no evidence about them. On the other hand, the photo of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) shows that she is well-grown up girl advanced in age. Vide page 2551 of Gour's Penal Law of India, Vol. III 1966 edition. But there is no evidence about them. On the other hand, the photo of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) shows that she is well-grown up girl advanced in age. So, the finding of the lower Court that the girl was more than 14 years of age at the time of the occurrence is correct. 17. Thus, the prosecution has not made out its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, there is voluminous evidence adduced by the respondent to show that she was a willing and consenting party. His evidence as D. W. 1 is that he had sexual intercourse with P. W. 3, 3 or 4 times prior to the elopement, that in the morning of 20-9-1963 he saw P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) in a jeep near the bus stand at Rupmahal Theatre, Imphal, where he parked his bus, that P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) told D.W.1 (Gourachandra Sarma) that her parents wanted to give her in marriage to somebody else and that D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) should meet her in her parents' house in Wangjing in the morning of the next day and take her away. It is the further evidence of D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) that, accordingly, he took the bus in the morning of 21-9-1963 to the house of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) and blew the horn, that P. W. 2 (Ibemhal Devi) and P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) came and boarded the bus, that P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) sat by his side on the front seat itself while P. W. 2 (Ibemhal Devi) sat behind them, that there were some more persons in the bus, that he stopped the bus on Khangabok village road, that P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) and he got down and proceeded for a distance of about 1 mile to the house of D. W. 4 (Bhattacharjamayum Krishnachandra Sarma) and that they slept in his house and had sexual intercourse. D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) went on to depose that on the next day they saw the relations of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) moving in the village in search of her, that in the night at about 7-00 or 8-00 p. m. D. W. 3 (Thokchom Piktru Singh) and Moirangthem Ahanjao Singh came to the house of D. W. 4 (Krishnachandra Sarma) and advised them to leave the place, that after taking food D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) and P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) accompanied by D. W. 3 (Piktru Singh) and the other person on her request went towards Thoubal through paddy fields that then they went to Haokha Kiyam and reached the house of D. W. 5 (Hidangmayom Heramani Sarma), that they stayed in his house and that P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) and D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) had sexual intercourse in his house also. It is the further evidence of D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) that all the 4 of them left the house of D. W. 5 (Heramani Sarma) and went towards Lilong and went to the house of D. W. 2 (Md. Faizruddin Khan), that there they engaged a jeep and went in the jeep to Baman Leikai where they were dropped, that the 4 persons proceeded to the house of the consin sister of D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma), but that P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) did not like to stay in the locality as a relation of her was living in the same locality, that after taking their food D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) and P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) went to Thoubalkhong and reached the house of P. W. 6 (Laimayum Ninghthem Sarma), that they stayed in his house, that later on they hid themselves in another house in the same village and that they were caught by the Police when they were in that house. It is the evidence of D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) that P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) admitted before D. Ws. 3 to 6 (Piktru Singh, Krishnachandra Sarma, Heramani Sarma and Ninghtem Sarma) that she had willingly come away with D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma). The evidence of D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) is corroborated by their evidence. It is the evidence of D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) that P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) admitted before D. Ws. 3 to 6 (Piktru Singh, Krishnachandra Sarma, Heramani Sarma and Ninghtem Sarma) that she had willingly come away with D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma). The evidence of D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) is corroborated by their evidence. They deposed that P. W. 3 admitted before them that she came away with the respondent willingly and, that she was cheerful and happy and that she was rendering services to him. D. W. 4 (Krishnachandra Sarma) denied that he is the maternal uncle of D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma). D. Ws. 5 and 6 (Heramani Sarma and Ningthem Sarma) are not related to D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma). But, D. Ws. 4 to 6 (Krishnachandra Sarma, Heramani Sarma and Ningthem Sarma) belong to the same community to which D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) belongs. 18. So, the evidence of D. Ws. 1 to 6 (Gourachandra Sarma, Faizuruddin Khan, Piktru Singh, Krishnachandra Sharma, Heramani Sarma and Ningthem Sarma) throws doubt over the case of the prosecution. But, the contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the evidence of D. Ws. 1 to 6 (Gourachandra Sarma, Md. Faizuruddin Khan, Piktru Singh, Krishnachandra Sarma, Heramani Sarma and Ningthem Sarma) will have to be scrutinised in the same way in which the evidence let in by the prosecution is scrutinised that it is inconsistent with the statement of the respondent under S. 341, Criminal P. C., and that it cannot be relied on. He cited Harprasad Ghashiram Gupta v. State, AIR 1952 Bom 184 and State v. Bhima Devraj, AIR 1956 Sau 77. In both the cases it was laid down that, where an accused sets up in defence one of the exceptions mentioned in S. 105, Penal Code, the burden lies upon him to make it out. Section 105, Penal Code relates to the right of private defence of property. It is a cardinal principle of law that in every criminal case the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, unless the law requires the accused to prove any fact pleaded by him in defence. The prosecution stands or falls on its own case. The accused need not rebut the prosecution evidence by leading equally balanced evidence as in a civil suit. The prosecution stands or falls on its own case. The accused need not rebut the prosecution evidence by leading equally balanced evidence as in a civil suit. It is sufficient if the evidence let in by him throws doubt over the case of the prosecution. The evidence of D. Ws. 1 to 6 (Gourachandra Sarma, Md. Faizuruddin Khan, Piktru Singh, Krishnachandra Sarma, Heramani Sarma and Ningthem Sarma) is such that the case of the prosecution is rendered doubtful. 19. The only circumstance in the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 4 to 6 (Gourachandra Sarma, Krishnachandra Sarma, Heramani Sarma and Ningthem Sarma) is that none of them sent information to the parents of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) in pursuance of the age long custom prevailing in Manipur called "haidokpa" under which on the next day of elopement information should be sent to the relations of the girl about the elopement. In manipur marriage by elopement is permitted. It is a Gandharva form of marriage. But, some formal function should be arranged after the elopment. The case of D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) is that he wanted to marry P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) by elopement. The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that in Manipur a Brahmin cannot marry a non-Brahmin girl and that such a marriage is not recognised by the customary law in Manipur. The contention of the respondent's counsel is that in Manipur there had been only one community of Kshatriyas, that the other three communities of Brahmins, Vaisyas and Sudras were not in existence, that Brahmins migrated to Manipur from about 1512 A. D. and settled down in Manipur, and that Kshytriyas of Manipur were following the avocation of Vaisyas and Sudras. He further stated that the Brahmins had "Pannei" (long co-habitation between a man and a woman as husband and wife) with Kshatriya women and had issues, who were considered to be Brahmins. His argument is supported by ''Bamon Khunthoklon" a treatise on the Brahmins, as to how they came and settled down in Manipur. It shows that Brahmins migrated in 1512 A. D. from several parts of the adjacent States, that they co-habited with non-Brahmin girls and that their issues were also considered to be Brahmins, in spite of the fact that they were born to non-Brahmin girls. The evidence of D. Ws. It shows that Brahmins migrated in 1512 A. D. from several parts of the adjacent States, that they co-habited with non-Brahmin girls and that their issues were also considered to be Brahmins, in spite of the fact that they were born to non-Brahmin girls. The evidence of D. Ws. 4 to 6 (Krishnachandra Sarma, Heramani Sarma and Ningthem Sarma) is that according to the custom prevailing in Manipur, no subsequent formality is necessary after a Brahmin male elopes with a non-Brahmin girl and that the marriage is complete by elopement. Their evidence further shows that Brahmasaba, which was in existence during the reign of the Ex : Maharajah, became a defunct body and that no formal ceremony or permission of anybody is necessary to validate such a marriage. So, it is quite possible that the respondent, who is a widower, might have thought of marrying P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) by elopement. But, he should have sent information to the parents of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) about elopement. At least, D. Ws. 4 to 6 (Krishnachandra Sarma, Heramani Sarma and Ningthem Sarma) should have given them the information according to the prevailing custom under "hidokpa". No doubt, they explained away their failure to do so by stating that the parents of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) did not like that she should marry a Brahmin, that if they got information they would have separated P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) from D. W. 1 (Gourachandra Sarma) and that, therefore, no information was sent to the parents of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi). I do not think that this is a valid reason. Several elopements of this type are taking place in Manipur. If the parents do not approve of the alliance, they do not take part in the subsequent formal functions. So, if P. W. 3's (Sumati Devi's) parents were not willing, they would not have taken part in the subsequent functions. It was the duty of D. Ws. 1 and 4 to 6 (Gourachandra Sarma, Krishachandra Sarma, Heramani Sarma and Ningthem Sarma) to inform the parents of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) about the elopement. But, for the purpose of the present criminal case, it is not necessary to dwell at length on this aspect of the case. 20. It was the duty of D. Ws. 1 and 4 to 6 (Gourachandra Sarma, Krishachandra Sarma, Heramani Sarma and Ningthem Sarma) to inform the parents of P. W. 3 (Sumati Devi) about the elopement. But, for the purpose of the present criminal case, it is not necessary to dwell at length on this aspect of the case. 20. Thus, the final conclusion of the lower Court is correct, though its judgment is inconsistent here and there with the ultimate findings. 21. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.