Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The question whether the offence of kidnapping is completed the moment the girl is taken out of the custody of her lawful guardian, or is a continuing offence until she returns back to her guardian, has been the subject of consideration in several recent cases. In Nemai Chattoraj v. Queen-Empress 27 C. 104 : 4 C.W.N. 645 (F.B.) a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court (Rampini, J., dissenting) held that the offence was not a continuing one, but. became complete the moment the girl was taken, or enticed out of the custody of her lawful guardian. The only case in support of the contrary view is that of Beg. v. Samia Kaundan 1 M. 173 : 1 Weir 353, in which the accused was charged with the offence on kidnapping a minor out of India. In that case the offence was not completed until the minor crossed the limits of British India. The case was referred to in two cases of this Court, viz., Queen-Empress v. Sam Dei 18 A. 350 A.W.N. (1896) 96 and Queen-Empress v. Ram Sundar 19 A. 109 : A.W.N. (1886) 191 and not followed. The judgment of this Court is on the same lines as the judgment of the Pull Bench of the Calcutta Court already referred to. In a later case in the Madras Court Chekutty v. Emperor 26 M. 454 : 2 Weir 296, the Chief Justice (Sir Arnold White) observed as follows: "in support of the conviction it was argued that the offence of kidnapping was continuous and that the assault on the mother having been committed during the continuance of the kidnapping, the two offences were committed in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction. It has recently been held by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Nemai Chattoraj v. Queen-Empress 27 C. 104 : 4 C.W.N. 645 (F.B.) that the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship is complete when the minor is actually taken from lawful guardianship and that it is not an offence continuing as long as the minor is kept out of such guardianship." The case of Reg. v. Samia Kaundan 1 m. 173 : 1 Weir 353 was distinguished on the ground I have already indicated. In a very similar case which came up before the Punjab Chief Court, Sir Meredyth Plowden and Mr. Justice Roe held that speaking generally, the keeping of the guardian came to an end when the person of the minor had been transferred from the custody of the guardian, or some person on his behalf, in to the custody of some person not entitled to custody of the minor". They further observed at page 21: But there can be no abetment of taking by conduct, which commences only after the minor has once been completely taken out of the keeping of the guardian, and the guardian's keeping of the minor is completely at an end." Whether the taking was or was not complete is a question for determination with reference to the circumstances proved in the particular case: Chandn v. Queen-Empress 6 P.R. 1894 Cr. We have now to see whether on the evidence it has been proved that Abdur Rahman instigated the kidnapping of Musammat Khatun.

5. There is no direct evidence that before the girl was actually brought to the house of Haidar, Abdur Rahman had any thing to do with the matter. The first mention we have of Abdur Rahman is when the girl had actually been kidnapped and brought to the house of Haidar, and the only evidence of what then happened is that he had some conversation with Imaman and Azizan. We have no evidence of what that conversation was about, Abdur Rahman had asked Azizan to come over to his house to see his wife who was very ill and as she did not go as promised, he came again a little while afterwards. According to the evidence of Musamrnat Khatun, she and Azizan then accompanied him back to his house. Mr. Sital Prasad Ghosh has argued that although there is no direct evidence, it must be inferred from the circumstances that it was at the instance of Abdur Rahman that the girl was kidnapped. We have no evidence upon that point. The only evidence that we have is that of the woman Khatun, who says that Abdur Rahman refused to let her go as he had spent a lot of money to obtain possession of her and that until she refunded the money he would not let her go. We have no other evidence upon the point. I cannot upon this evidence alone hold that Abdur Rahman had some concern with the kidnapping. The offence had been completed long before Abdur Rahman came on the scene, and on the authorities of this Court as well as of other Courts cited by me above there is nothing to show that he was concerned in any way in abetting the kidnapping by Yusuf and Haidar.