NORMAN O CONNOR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the appellant was charged with and convicted, by the Additional Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, of an offence under Section 498, I.P.C. and sentenced to, rigorous imprisonment for 12 months. The accused is 19 and the married woman whom, it is alleged, he took or enticed away from her husband, is aged 25. In cases under this section consent is immaterial. But it is essential to see that there is evidence that the accused took or enticed away the woman, within the meaning of the section.

(2.) The complainant and his wife and the accused have been on intimate terms of friendship for a considerable time. The accused was constantly at the complainant's house and there is no doubt, that he knew quite well that she was married to the complainant, and the marriage was sufficiently proved. The complainant was not able to give any evidence himself with regard to the taking away of his wife, because he was not present at the time. All that he could say was that she disappeared from his house and, consequently, he charged the accused with having enticed her away. In cross-examination, he admitted that the accused was constantly at his house, playing cards with him and his wife and sister, that he used to give the complainant tips for the races, and that he was left in the house alone with the complainant's wife on many occasions. He stated that neither Stella, that is, his wife's mother, nor Daisy, his father's daughter, who was called by him stepsister nor some person, Charlie Davies, who also lived in the same house, knew when his wife left the house, nor was he able to say who carried her boxes. His wife did not tell him how this was done.

(3.) Mrs Stella Davies, the girl's mother, stated that the accused took her daughter away. But it seems apparent that this evidence was merely hearsay because she was not actually present when the woman went away, though she lives in the same house. In cross- examination she stated that the accused was a frequent visitor at the complainant's house, but she was not sure whether he used to sleep there at night. She saw him in the house very early in the morning having his tea. He used to sit the whole day in the house, while the complainant was at work. Her son, apparently meaning the complainant, was very friendly with the accused and so he was allowed to live with them like the others.