The word "detains" in Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code does not necessarily imply that the woman detained is unwilling to stay with the accused. The consent of the wife is not relevant in determining whether the accused has detained her within the meaning of Section 498.

Headnote:
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 498 - DETENTION - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - CONSENT OF WIFE - RELEVANCE - CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD "DETAINS" - JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were charged under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongfully detaining the legally married wife of the complainant with the intent to have illicit intercourse with her. The prosecution alleged that the woman had disappeared from her husband's house and was later found at the appellants' house. The appellants claimed that the woman had voluntarily left her husband and come to stay with them. The trial court convicted the appellants, but the appellate court reduced their sentence. The High Court confirmed the conviction but enhanced the sentence.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the word "detains" in Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code does not necessarily imply that the woman detained is unwilling to stay with the accused. The court found that the appellants had offered to marry the woman and thereby either persuaded or encouraged her to leave her husband's house. This constituted detention within the meaning of the section, even though the woman may have been willing to stay with the appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the word "detains" in Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code requires the woman to be unwilling to stay with the accused? 2. Whether the consent of the wife is relevant in determining whether the accused has detained her within the meaning of Section 498?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the word "detains" in Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code to mean keeping back a wife from her husband or any other person having the care of her on behalf of her husband with the requisite intention. Such keeping back may be by force or by persuasion, allurement, or blandishments. 2. The court held that the consent of the wife is not relevant in determining whether the accused has detained her within the meaning of Section 498. The object of the section is to protect the rights of the husband, not the rights of the wife. Therefore, even if the wife is willing to stay with the accused, it does not negate the offense of detention.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code but reduced their sentence to two months' simple imprisonment.

Judgement

P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This criminal appeal raises a short question about the construction of the word "detains" occurring in S. 498 of the Indian Penal Code. It arises in this way. The two appellants were charged before the trial Magistrate under S. 498 of the Code in that on or about October 27, 1952, at the village Mohania they wrongfully detained Mst. Rahmatia, the legally married wife of the complainant Saklu Mian, when they knew or had reason to believe that she was the wedded wife of the complainant and was under his protection, with intent to have illicit intercourse with her. The prosecution case was that Mst. Rahmatia had disappeared from her husband s house on October 21, 1952; the complainant made search for her for several days but was not able to trace her whereabouts. Ultimately he filed a complaint at the police station after he was informed by Shekoor Mian (P. W. 4) that he had seen the complainant s wife at the house of the two appellants. The complainant then went to the house of the appellants along with Shakoor Mian (P. W. 4), Musa Mian (P. W. 2) and Suleman Mian (P. W. 3); they saw the woman in the house of the appellants whereupon the complainant asked appellant No. 1 Alamgir to let his wife go with him but appellant No. 1 told him that he had married her and appellant No. 2 warned him to get away and said that, it he persisted, he would be driven out. This story is corroborated by the three companions of the complainant.

2. The appellants denied the charge. They pleaded that the complainant had not validly married the woman and that she had not been detained by them. According to them, the woman was tired of living with the complainant and that she had voluntarily and of her free will come to stay with the appellants.

3. The learned trial Magistrate believed the prosecution evidence, rejected the pleas raised by the defence, convicted the appellants of the charge framed and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. This order of conviction and sentence was challenged by the appellants by their appeal before the Court of Sessions. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants but reduced their sentence from simple imprisonment for two months to a fine of Rs. 50 or in default simple imprisonment for one month each. The appellants then moved the High Court at Patna in its revisional jurisdiction. When the revisional application came to be heard before Choudhary J., the learned Judge thought that the appellate Court should not have reduced the sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial Magistrate and so he issued a notice against the appellants calling upon them to show cause why their sentence should not be enhanced. This notice and the main revisional application were ultimately heard by Ramaswamy and Imam JJ, who confirmed the order of conviction and enhanced the sentence against both the appellants by ordering that each of them should suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. An application made by the appellants to the High Court for a certificate to appeal to this Court was rejected. The appellants then applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court. That is how this appeal has come before us for final disposal.

4. On behalf of the appellants, Mr. B. K. Saran has urged that the evidence in the case clearly shows that the woman was dissatisfied with her husband and had left his house and protection voluntarily and of her free will. If having thus left the house she came to stay with the appellants and they allowed her to stay with them, it cannot be said that they have detained her within the meaning of S. 498. According to him, the word "detains" used in S. 498 must necessarily imply that the woman detained is unwilling to stay with the accused and has been compelled so to stay with him against her will and desire. It is difficult to imagine that, if a woman is willing to stay with a person, it can be said that the person has det

Click Here to Read the rest of this document