KESAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision application directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge Jammu whereby the conviction and sentence Under Section 498, R, P. C, recorded against the accused persons has been confirmed. The complainant's allegations against the accused persons are that during the period that he (complainant) was held in detention in Pakistan, his lawfully wedded wife (accused 2) was enticed away by accused 1 with intention that he may have illicit intercourse with her and that the accused 2 continues to put up with the accused 1 who has extended shelter to her, Both the courts below have arrived at the concurrent finding that the accused 2 is the lawfully wedded wife of the complainant and that she was living on his behalf under the care of his parents when she was enticed away by accused 1. It has further been found by the Courts below that accused 1 continues to detain the woman in his house for the purpose of having illicit intercourse with her. These findings are supported by evidence and I do not find on facts any reason to interfere with them.

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons did not seriously challenge these findings, but he has assailed them on various points of law. He has in main drawn my attention to the derivative meaning of the word 'detained' according to which an accused can be convicted Under Section 498 only if he "keeps back" a woman from going to her husband. According to the applicant's learned Counsel, there should be something in the nature of control or influence exercised by the accused which can properly be described as "keeping back" a woman. He has further elaborated his argument by submitting that if a married woman goes out of her own free-will to live in the house of another man, even with the intention of having illicit intercourse with him, it cannot y be said that such a man detains the woman, simply because the element of control or influence on behalf of the accused is wanting. In support of his argument he has drawn my attention to 'ram Narayan Baburao v. Emperor' AIR 1937 Bom 186 (A), which dealt with the case of a woman who was discarded by her husband and was living with her father and brother, where she was not very happy. In course of time, she fell in love with the accused, and both of them eloped to another place. It was held by their Lordships of the Bombay High Court that

(3.) A reference to the various authorities that have been produced by the counsel on behalf of the parties would show;