Shah, J - (1.)We have heard an interesting and a careful argument from Mr. velinkar on behalf Of the appellants in this case, I have considered the evidence in the light of his arguments and the criticism to i which the evidence has been subjected by him. The charge against the two accused is that from the 10th of October 1916 they wrongfully confined one Vithibai for three or more days and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused No. 2 is a brothel keeper in Bombay and accused No. 1 is said to have supplied women to be used as prostitutes in this brothel from time to time. He brought Vithibai, the complainant in this case, to Bombay and kept her in the brothel of accused No. 2. The case for the prosecution is that this Vithibai like other women in the brothel was kept in confinement. Vithibai stayed on in the house kept by accused No. 2 from, the 10th of October until May 1917 when an application was prepared on her behalf by the witness Abdul Gani and sent to the Commissioner of Police. Thereafter an enquiry was made and the present prosecution is the result of that investigation.
(2.)The evidence for the prosecution consists of the statements made by Vithibai and three other women who stayed in the house, namely, Chandrabai, Godibai and Sundri. Vithibai describes the manner in which she was kept in this house in these terms: "I was always kept in confinement by the accused No. 2. The accused No. 1 Bandu lived with me in the brothel of the accused No. 2 for eight days. During these eight days I was not free to go out anywhere. The brothel of the accused No. 2 is on the first floor of a house at Kamatipura. The entrance to the building was always kept closed. It used to be opened for the visitors but the servant in charge used to close it up. The servant used to be always at the door. Besides this servant a man and Ids woman used to keep guard over us and, therefore, we were not free to go out of the house." To the same effect is the evidence of Chandrabai. She says as follows: "We four were kept like prisoners in the brothel. We were never allowed to go out. One Vitha and her paramour Dewoo used to keep watch over us." And Godibai deposes to the same effect: "They were constantly in a state of confinement. There is a woman named Vitha on the brothel and she has a paramour named Dewoo. Vitha and Dewoo watched the four girls." Sundri, who was examined by the Court, stayed in the brothel for a short time; she swears that accused No. 2 never allowed her to go down. This evidence, if believed, would ^clearly show that accused No. 2 wrongfully confined the complainant Vithibai.
(3.)The main argument on behalf of the defence has been that these women who more or less voluntarily submitted themselves to prostitution now exaggerate matters and that their evidence is not worthy of credence. In the first place the learned trial Magistrate, who saw these witnesses, has in the main believed them. I have read the evidence of these witnesses, particularly the cross-examination of Vithibai; and after a careful consideration thereof I am unable to find any good reason to hold that in so far as they speak of wrongful confinement their evidence is not true. I am satisfied on the evidence of these four women that not only was Vithibai kept in a state of confinement, but that the women in this brothel house were kept in that state and that such confinement was a part of the life which the inmates of the house were constrained to live. It has been urged on behalf of the accused that Vithibai had abandoned her husband and lived for some time with accused No. 1 at Kolhapur as his mistress, that she accompanied him to Bombay voluntarily and that she took to the life of prostitution voluntarily. I have carefully considered this argument; and having regard to the circumstances of the case I am not satisfied by any means that Vithibai did voluntarily submit herself to the life which she undoubtedly led in the house of accused No. 2. If the evidence as to wrongful confinement is true, it is not easy to believe that these women Submitted themselves to prostitution voluntarily. However, I am willing to assume for the sake of argument in favour of the defence that Vithibai of her own accord accompanied accused No. 1 and commenced to stay in the house of accused No. 2 to lead the life of a. prostitute. Even then the question is whether the wrongful confinement to which she is said to have been subjected is proved. I am satisfied that the evidence as to wrongful confinement is true. It is urged on behalf of the defence that now and then Vithibai and other women in the brothel were allowed to go out. It seems to me, however, that their going out casually does not make their confinement in the house any the less wrongful on that account. The mere fact that they could leave it on occasions probably under proper control and largely according to the wishes of accused No. 2, goes to emphasize in my opinion the truthfulness of the evidence that generally they were kept confined in the house and were used for the purposes of prostitution under that restraint. Having regard to this view of the evidence in the case there can be no doubt about the guilt of accused No. 2.