JNANENDRA NATH DEY Vs. KSHITISH CHANDRA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a Rule was issued to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner should not be set aside. The petitioner was charged with an offence under Section 498, I.P.C. and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. The complainant married his wife Shantilata seven years ago. The accused Jnanendra was his sister's husband, that is to say, his brother-in-law, who lived in a neighbouring house. For sometime, the complainant noticed undue intimacy between his wife and Jnanendra. In Agrahayan last, she went to Jnanendra's house for a social ceremony and put off coming back on one pretext or another until the next month. Six days after that, she again went to Jnanendra's house, whence Jnanendra took her to her mother. From there she refused to return to her husband's house. Later, Jnanendra took her to his house. There was a village Salish and Jnanendra agreed to let the complainant take his wife away. The wife was unwilling to go and there was trouble. Eventually she was taken to the house of Panchanon, the grand-uncle of the complainant. From there, it is alleged, the accused took her away at night to the house of Surobala, a relative of his, where he spent the night with her from time to time. The young woman is about 20 years of age and, according to her evidence, she left Panchanon's house of her own free will. She was a witness for the prosecution, who was declared hostile. She said that she left Panchanon's house at mid-day, because her husband used to beat her and she wanted to escape from his ill-treatment. Her evidence was not believed in either of the Courts below. There was evidence for the prosecution that a number of men, including Jnanendra, came to Panchanon's house in the middle of the night and at 1 a.m. they took Shantilata from the house in a boat.

(2.) It is sufficiently obvious that the girl went away of her own accord. But that is immaterial under Section 498. The question is whether the accused took or enticed her away. There is no definition in the Code of the word "taking." It apparently is intended to mean something different from "enticing." It cannot mean "taking by force," because this would amount to abduction. In our opinion, a case under Section 498 is sufficiently established, if it can be shown that the accused personally and actively assisted the wife to get away from her husband's house or from the custody of any person who was taking care of her on behalf of the husband. Of course, the "taking" must be with the "intention" stated in the section. In this case, it is clear that the accused not only provided the means by which she got away from Panchanon's house, namely the boat, but he brought it to the house and himself went away with the girl in the boat from the house. In these circumstances we consider that he "took" the girl away within the meaning of the section. The fact that Jnanendra and the girl stayed together at night at Surobala's house is sufficient to show that there was criminal intent within the meaning of the section. In these circumstances, the conviction and sentence will stand and the Rule accordingly must be discharged. The petitioner, who is on bail, will surrender to his bail and serve out the remainder of his sentence. Jack, J.

(3.) I agree.