1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 48/1999 Bhagwan @ Bhagwat s/o Gangadhar Kale, Age : 24 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Yerandi, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. ...Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad ....Respondent. Mr. S.S. Manale, Advocate for appellant. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 25th November, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 This appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Extra Jt. Sessions Judge, Latur dated 02/01/1999 in Sessions Case No. 129/1997 convicting the appellant under Section 498 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause. 2 The case of the prosecution is as under. Complainant Satish and his wife Chanchala were married in 1992 and were staying at village Erandi. They were blessed withs two children. On 02/05/1996 the complainant found his wife missing from 2 the house. He also noticed that she had left with cash of Rs.2,000/- and her ornaments. The complainant subsequently learnt from villagers that the appellant had taken away his wife and they had boarded a bus. He lodged his complaint to the police on 05/05/1996 and the police registered offence under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The police ultimately arrested the appellant at Hyderabad on 11/06/1996 and found the complainant’s wife with him. The appellant, the wife of the complainant and the police came back to the Police Station at Ausa. The police seized wearing cloths of both the appellant as well as the complainant’s wife and sent them for chemical analysis. The police also sent blood samples of both these persons to Chemical Analyzer. 3 As said above, the learned judge held that the appellant had detained the complainant’s wife with an intention that she would have illicit intercourse with him and convicted him under Section 498 of Indian Penal Code. This judgment is being challenged in this appeal. 4 The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses out of which the complainant and the Investigation officer are the important ones. Rest of the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The complainant admittedly did not see the appellant taking away his wife and boarding a bus at village Erandi. The witnesses who allegedly saw the appellant boarding the bus with the complainant’s wife turned hostile and therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant took away the complainant’s wife, from her house or from the village and boarded a bus with her. The complainant’s wife was also examined by the prosecution as witness 3 No.7. She disclosed a different story. She said, in the month of May, 1996 she and her husband left their village and went to Ausa by bus. She said on the very night she and her husband proceeded ahead to go to Hyderabad. She said, her husband rented a room at Hyderabad in Machhi Bazar area and they resided there. She said, thereafter the appellant came there and the appellant, the complainant and she herself slept in the room for one night. She said, during the night, her husband left the room and came back with police in the morning. She said, police apprehended the appellant and brought them to Ausa. She denied having any illicit relation with the appellant. In the cross examination, she admitted that she resided at Hyderabad for about a month and during that period she resided in the room referred to above situated in Machhi Bazar area. In this back ground the deposition of the Investigation Officer prosecution witness No. 8 assumes importance. He said, after the offence was registered, he made search and ultimately on 11/06/1996, he went to Hyderabad. He said, he traced out the appellant and the complainant’s wife in Machhi Bazar area of Hyderabad. He said, he brought them at Police Station on the same day. This witness did not give details as to in what condition, he found the appellant and wife of the complainant at Machhi Bazar area of Hyderabad. He did not even say that he found them in a room or residential quarters. He simply said that he traced them and found them in Machhi Bazar area of Hyderabad. Despite this, the learned judge of the trial Court observed in his judgment that the prosecution could prove that the appellant detained the complainant’s wife. In addition to this, the learned judge also held that since the appellant and the complainant’s wife had ample opportunity to indulge in sexual 4 intercourse. He held that the appellant had intention to have illicit intercourse with the complainant’s wife. 5. On facts, both the conclusions are erroneous. There is practically no evidence on record to show that the appellant and complainant’s wife stayed in one room at Machhi Bazar area of Hyderabad. So, there was no question of the appellant’s detaining the complainant’s wife. Secondly, there is nothing on record to hold that the appellant had intention that the complainant’s wife had illicit intercourse with him or some other person. The prosecution thus has really failed to prove its case. 6. In order to prove a case under Section 498 of Indian Penal Code, its three ingredients are required to be proved. (i) The offender must take or entice away or conceal or detain the wife of another person, (ii) the offender either should know or has reason to believe that the woman is the wife of another person, (iii) The offender while taking, enticing, concealing or detaining such woman must have intention that she may have illicit intercourse with any person. Above all, it is only if the intention is proved that it becomes necessary to consider whether the other two ingredients are proved or not. This law is laid down probably for the first time by the Supreme Court in the case of Alamgir and another Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1959 Supreme Court 436. In this judgment, the Supreme Court took into account the previous precedents on Section 498 IPC delivered mostly by various High Courts. The significance of this judgment is that the Supreme Court in this judgment interpreted rather differently the word “detains” used in this section. The Supreme Court held - “The gist of the offence under S. 498 appears to be the deprivation of the 5 husband of his custody and his proper control over his wife with the object of having illicit intercourse with her. The consent of the wife to deprive her husband of his proper control over her would not be material. It is the infringement of the rights of the husband coupled with the intention of illicit intercourse that is the essential ingredient of the offence under S. 498. .... if the word “detains” may denote detention of a person against his or her will; in the context of this section it is impossible to give that meaning to the said word. If the object of the section had been to protect the wife such a construction would obviously have been appropriate; but since the object of the section is to protect the rights of the husband, it cannot be any defence to the charge to say that, though the husband has been deprived of his rights, the wife is willing to injure the said rights and so the person who is responsible for her willingness has not detained her. Detention in the context must mean keeping back a wife from her husband.” 7. In any case, in this case, the prosecution neither proved the intention of the appellant that the complainant’s wife would have illicit intercourse with any person nor the prosecution could prove that the appellant had detained the complainant’s wife as understood by the above mentioned ratio of the Supreme Court judgment. The appeal should therefore, succeed. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by Extra Joint Sessions Judge, Latur dated 2/01/1999 in Sessions Case No. 129/1997 stands set aside. The appellant stands acquitted. His bail bond stands cancelled. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J) ts k/ok 6