- (1.) In February and March, 1964, the appellant raja Ram was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Rohtak. He was committed to the court of Sessions, Rohtak, for trial under S. 331 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted of the charge under section 331 but was convicted under S. 342, Indian penal code and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. His appeal 'to the High court was dismissed and he has now appealed to this court by special leave. The charge against him read as follows: "I, K. S. Sindhu, Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, hereby charge you raja Ram son of Charan Dass as follows: Firstly, that you on or about in the month of March, 1964 at g. I. A. Police post, Jhajjar, while investigating a theft case in f. I. R. No. 2 of 1964 of P. S. Sampla, as A. S. I. Police voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Ranbir Singh, a minor son of Lakshmi dutt for the purpose of extorting from Lakshmi Dutt a person interested in the said Ranbir Singh as his father a confession in respect of the offence of theft in the house of Ram Dhan of village silana and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 331 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. Secondly, that you on or about in the month of March, 1964, at the C. 1. A. Police post, Jhajjar wrongfully confined Lakshmi Dutt, devi Dutt, Chand Kaur, Ranbir Singh minor and Jagbir Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 342 of the indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried under the said charges by this court. "
(2.) No dates were mentioned in the charge. The finding against him was that he had confined persons mentioned in the second charge for a period of two days and that formed the basis of the conviction. In this appeal raja Ram contests the correctness of this finding.
(3.) Ordinarily this court does not consider the evidence for the third time but there are several special features in this case, such as rejection of a considerable mass of evidence charging the appellant with causing of grievous hurt, outraging the modesty of Chand Kaur and also rape. This made us look into the evidence to see how far the case as found against the appellant could be held to be proved and whether the evidence was reliable. The facts of the case are as follows.;