KISHAN KANT Vs. RAMA SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated August 3, 1977 under which, the learned Judge affirmed the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 497 IPC as well as the sentence, awarded by the learned Magistrate under his judgment dated 3.3.1976, while convicting the accused petitioner Under Section 497 IPC sentenced him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts in brief are there: Ramashankar was married to Smt. Ramabeti in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs in the year 1954, and both of them were living in Jodhpur in a rented house in the year 1966. The accused petitioner Krishna Kant was also living as a tenant in the adjoining room. Ramashankar was transferred from Jodhpur and when he asked his wife to accompany him, she refused to go with him. Ramashankar was retransferred to Jodhpur and then he saw that Ramabeti his wife and Krishna Kant were having sexual intercourse. He asked Ramabeti to leave the house but she did not agree and gave out that she has started living with Krishanakant the accused petitioner and has established relationship as husband and wife. There was no effect of any persuation. A complaint was filed by Shri Ramashankar and the accused petitioner was tried. The learned Magistrate after trial convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as aforesaid. The plea set up by the accused petitioner in his statement under Section 313 was that he is already married and has no concern whatsoever with Smt. Ramebeti. The accused petitioner examined as many as two witnesses in defence.

(3.) AN offence Under Section 497 IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto five years or with fine or with both. The provisions contained in Chapter XX and more so, of Section 497 IPC are for the protection of the husband. I am, therefore, not inclined to extend to benefit of Section 360 CrPC or of the Probation of Offenders Act. But, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, which have already been enumerated above, the offence being such which can also be punished with fine only, I am of the opinion that the sentence already ungergone by the accused shall meet the ends of justice.