SATYA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appellants, who are inter se mother and son, have been convicted for having committed an offence under S.498, I.P.C. and each of them has been sentenced to undergo regorous imprisonment for three years.

(2.) This case was started on a complaint filed by P.W.7. Bhedu Rai against 8 persons, including these appellants, alleging that Mosst. Sonawati was his legally married wife and that in his absence on 11-10-1973 the 8 accused persons had enticed her away from his house and were keeping her at village Bhakurahia, the Nanihal of appellant No.1 Satya Narain Bhagat for illicit intercourse. Cognizance was taken against the 8 accused persons who were ultimately committed to the Court of Session for an offence under S.366, I.P.C. Charge under S.366, I.P.C. was framed against all the accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who tried the case on a consideration of the evidence of the prosecution came to the conclusion that the ingredients of S.366, I.P.C. were not proved in the case, but, however, the evidence on the record proved the ingredients of section 498, I.P.C. and convicted these two appellants (out of the 8 accused persons) under section 498, I.P.C. holding that the offence was not proved as against the other remaining 6 accused persons who were acquitted of the charge.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the judgment of conviction on two scores. The first is that there could not be a conviction of these appellants under section 498, I.P.C. when they stood the trial of the case under section 366, I.P.C. The second part of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that even the charge under section 498 I.P.C. was not proved against them as the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under section 498, I.P.C. were not proved at all by the evidence on the record. After having considered the evidence and circumstances of the case and the points urged in those respects by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as for the State and the complainant. I must say that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants are wholly tenable on both the scores. I set down herewith the reasons for my opinion in that regard.