RAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Dropadi was married to Harbansh Lal, complainant in the instant case. Her other sister was married to Ram Singh applicant. It is stated in the complaint of Harbansh Lal that Smt. Dropadi developed illicit relations with the applicant on account of which the applicant was asked not to visit the house of the complainant. This was not to the liking of the parents -in -law of Smt. Dropadi and they insisted that Ram Singh should continue to visit the house of the complainant. It is then stated that on December 11, 1978 at about 8 -30 p. m. Ram Singh appeared at the complainant's house during his absence. His father Duli Chand (PW 4) asked him to go back at once. Smt. Dropadi intervened on behalf of Ram Singh and insisted that no impediment should be placed in the way of Ram Singh from visiting the house of the complainant. Duli Chand and his wife did not agree to the suggestion whereupon Smt. Dropadi with her young child left the house of the complainant in the company of Ram Singh and nothing was heard of her since. Then the complainant convened a Panchayat to resolve this dispute but Ram Singh applicant did not cooperate and the holding of the Panchayat did not produce any result. On the same day, the complainant, it was alleged, went to lodge a first information report at the Police Station but he was told that Ram Singh had already reported that Smt. Dropadi was missing. On the strength of these allegations, Ram Singh sought to be prosecuted both under Sec. 363 IPC and Sec. 498 IPC.

(2.) The trial Magistrate found that both the charges were established and convicted Ram Singh applicant on both the counts awarding him different sentences. On appeal preferred by Ram Singh, the Sessions Judge quashed the finding with regard to the offence punishable under Sec. 363 IPC. He, however, maintained the conviction of the applicant under Sec. 498 IPC and directed that Ram Singh shall suffer three month' imprisonment on this count. Ram Singh has now approached this Court in revision.

(3.) In order to bring a case within the purview of Sec. 498 IPC it is necessary to establish either that a married woman has been enticed or detained with the intent that the accused may have illicit intercourse with her. The evidence in the instant case shows and this is also a finding recorded by the Sessions Judge that Smt. Dropadi went out of her own accord with her brother -in -law Ram Singh. As such there is no question of enticing her. There is not an iota of evidence on the record which may establish that Ram Singh is detaining her with intent of having illicit relations with Smt. Dropadi. The allegation that Smt. Dropadi had illicit relations with her sister's husband Ram Singh is at best a suspicion and nothing more. In case it had been a fact, the parents of Smt. Dropadi would not have insisted that Ram Singh should be allowed to visit her. Moreover, Ram Singh's wife, who is no other than the sister of Smt. Dropadi, could not have relished the idea of Ram Singh having illicit relations with her own sister. What appears to be more probable is that the relations of Smt. Dropadi and her husband Harbansh Lal were not cordial and she did not want to remain in the house of her husband. As held by the Sessions Judge, she deserted her conjugal home out of her own free will. It is for Harbansh Lal to patch up the dispute with his wife and to re -establish the marriage ties which had been torn. No useful purpose can be served by making an scapegoat of Ram Singh.