BHOLA NATH MITTER Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Bhola Nath Mifcfcer has been convicted by Mr. Rajendra Nath Roy, an Honorary Presidency Magistrate, of offences punishable under Secs.497 and 498, I.P.C. It is found that he enticed or took away one Sikhar Basini Dasi alias Sushila Bala Dasi alias Renu whom he knew or had reason to believe to be the wife of Aprokash Chandra Ghose with intent to have illicit intercourse with her; and that, between September, 1922, and the 24 October, 1922, and again between the 15 November, 1922, and the 29 December, 1922, he committed adultery with her. There is evidence that Aprokash is by caste Kayastha and Sushila a Dom; the learned Magistrate has dealt with the case on this footing and these facts are not now disputed. Susbila, however, in spite of this humble origin appears to belong to a family of some wealth; and the defence set up by the appellant in the Court below was that a false charge had been brought against him in order to defeat his efforts to secure for Sushila a legacy of Rs. 50,000 due to her under her mother's will.

(2.) For the appellant it has been urged that Aprokash and Sushila were not validly married; that the facts that she was taken from the custody of her husband or from a person having care of her on his behalf and of the subsequent adultery have not been proved; and that the charge, so far as it related to the offence of adultery, was defective in form inasmuch as the precise dates of the alleged adultery were not specified, and instead it was only charged to have been committed between the dates just now stated.

(3.) It will be convenient to deal in the first place with the latter contentions.