ALAMGIR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal raises a short question about the construction of the word "detains" occurring in S. 498 of the Indian Penal Code. It arises in this way. The two appellants were charged before the trial Magistrate under S. 498 of the Code in that on or about October 27, 1952, at the village Mohania they wrongfully detained Mst. Rahmatia, the legally married wife of the complainant Saklu Mian, when they knew or had reason to believe that she was the wedded wife of the complainant and was under his protection, with intent to have illicit intercourse with her. The prosecution case was that Mst. Rahmatia had disappeared from her husband's house on October 21, 1952; the complainant made search for her for several days but was not able to trace her whereabouts. Ultimately he filed a complaint at the police station after he was informed by Shekoor Mian (P. W. 4) that he had seen the complainant's wife at the house of the two appellants. The complainant then went to the house of the appellants along with Shakoor Mian (P. W. 4), Musa Mian (P. W. 2) and Suleman Mian (P. W. 3); they saw the woman in the house of the appellants whereupon the complainant asked appellant No. 1 Alamgir to let his wife go with him but appellant No. 1 told him that he had married her and appellant No. 2 warned him to get away and said that, it he persisted, he would be driven out. This story is corroborated by the three companions of the complainant.

(2.) The appellants denied the charge. They pleaded that the complainant had not validly married the woman and that she had not been detained by them. According to them, the woman was tired of living with the complainant and that she had voluntarily and of her free will come to stay with the appellants.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate believed the prosecution evidence, rejected the pleas raised by the defence, convicted the appellants of the charge framed and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. This order of conviction and sentence was challenged by the appellants by their appeal before the Court of Sessions. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants but reduced their sentence from simple imprisonment for two months to a fine of Rs. 50 or in default simple imprisonment for one month each. The appellants then moved the High Court at Patna in its revisional jurisdiction. When the revisional application came to be heard before Choudhary J., the learned Judge thought that the appellate Court should not have reduced the sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial Magistrate and so he issued a notice against the appellants calling upon them to show cause why their sentence should not be enhanced. This notice and the main revisional application were ultimately heard by Ramaswamy and Imam JJ, who confirmed the order of conviction and enhanced the sentence against both the appellants by ordering that each of them should suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment. An application made by the appellants to the High Court for a certificate to appeal to this Court was rejected. The appellants then applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court. That is how this appeal has come before us for final disposal.