EMPEROR Vs. MAHIJI FULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay in a case in which one Mahiji Fula was convicted by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Borsad, of an offence under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted on appeal by the Sessions Judge of Kaira.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows. The complainant Shana Jhina of Amiad in Borsad taluka had a young wife named Nani. In June or July 1932 the husband left his village and went to a place in the Baroda State to earn his living, leaving his wife at home with his mother. While he was away, Kala Ranchhod, a brother of Nani, came to the complainant's house and took the girl away, and it appears that he afterwards married her by natra marriage to the accused, Mahiji Fula, who belongs to the village of Dehmi. The complainant was informed of what had occurred, and he went to Dehmi in the company of two other persons and found Nani in the house of the accused. It is alleged that when he saw them the accused came out of the house with a dharia and threatened them, whereupon they went away and returned to Amiad. It was not until October 20, 1932, that Shana Jhina filed his complaint. His explanation is that he had no money to do it before, but as no money was required, that does not appear to be true. The complaint was originally against both Kala Ranchhod and Mahiji Fula and was under Sections 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code, but the case against Kala Ranchhod was compromised, and, for some reason, which is by no means clear to me, the learned Magistrate considered that the only charge which could stand against Mahiji Fula was one under Section 498. That section prescribes the punishment for any person who takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman.

(3.) The Magistrate found that the accused had detained Bai Nani with the knowledge that she was the wife of the complainant and that he had so detained her with intent that she might have illicit intercourse with him. He accordingly convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 30.