Back
High Court Of Delhi
CHAMAN LAL - Appellant
Versus
HAJI SABAR ALI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 68 of 1967
Decided On : 03/31/1972
CRIMINAL LAW - ADULTERY - SECTION 497 INDIAN PENAL CODE - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 50 - MARRIAGE - PROOF - OPINION AS TO EXISTENCE OF RELATIONSHIP - SUFFICIENCY - PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 497 INDIAN PENAL CODE - STRICT PROOF REQUIRED - OPINION EXPRESSED BY CONDUCT - INSUFFICIENT - STATEMENTS OF FACT - ADMISSIBLE - ADULTERY - PROOF - EVIDENCE OF FINDING COUPLE NAKED IN A ROOM AT NIGHT - SUFFICIENT - SENTENCE - REDUCTION - JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Chaman Lal Monga, filed a complaint against the respondent, Haji Sabar Ali, alleging that the respondent had committed adultery with his wife, Rani Devi, and had enticed her away from him. The trial court convicted the respondent of adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The respondent appealed the conviction, and the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction for enticement but upheld the conviction for adultery. The appellant filed a revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence, while the respondent filed a revision petition seeking acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent could not be convicted of enticement under Section 498 IPC because there was no evidence that he had taken away or enticed Rani Devi from the appellant's house. The court also held that the respondent could be convicted of adultery under Section 497 IPC because the evidence showed that he and Rani Devi were found together in a room in the dead of night, that there was only one cot in the room, and that both he and the woman were found naked. The court reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 1,000.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent could be convicted of enticement under Section 498 IPC. 2. Whether the respondent could be convicted of adultery under Section 497 IPC. 3. Whether the sentence imposed on the respondent was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. To convict someone of enticement under Section 498 IPC, there must be evidence that the person enticed away the woman from her husband or from someone who had care of her on behalf of her husband. In this case, there was no evidence that the respondent had taken away or enticed Rani Devi from the appellant's house. 2. To convict someone of adultery under Section 497 IPC, the prosecution must strictly prove the marriage between the complainant and the woman. In this case, the marriage between the appellant and Rani Devi was not strictly proved, but the court held that the statements of the appellant, Rani Devi, and Satish Kumar (a witness who testified that he was present at the appellant's marriage to Rani Devi) were sufficient to establish the marriage. The court also held that the evidence showed that the respondent and Rani Devi were found together in a room in the dead of night, that there was only one cot in the room, and that both he and the woman were found naked. This evidence was sufficient to establish that the respondent was having sexual intercourse with Rani Devi. 3. The court held that the sentence imposed on the respondent was appropriate, considering the past conduct of Rani Devi and the fact that the appellant had already obtained a divorce from her.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and the criminal revisions filed by both parties.
( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of a criminal appeal and two criminal revisions. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1967 is Chaman Lal Monga who was complainant in the case. He is also petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1967. The respondent in the appeal and the criminal revision is Haji Sabar Ali who is also petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 157 of 1967. The respondent in that criminal revision is the State.
( 2 ) HAJI Sabar Ali was tried by a magistrate for an offence under Sections 497 and 498 Indian Penal Code and was awarded a sentence of two years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 for an offence under Section 497 Indian Penal Code and a sentence of one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 for an offence under Section 498 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine under both the counts he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Out of the amount of fine a sum of Rs. 1500. 00 was ordered to be paid to the complainant. On appeal by Haji Sabar Ali, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction for an offence under S. 498 Indian Penal Code but maintained the conviction under Section 497 Indian Penal Code. The sentence of imprisonment appeared to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to be harsh and he therefore reduced the same till the rising of the court but maintained the sentence of fine. In default of payment of fine, Haji Sabar Ali was ordered to under-go rigorous imprisionment for three months. Out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 500. 00 was directed to be paid to the cornplainant. It seems that the complainant was not satisfied with the order passed by the trial Court and had filed a revision petition praying that the sentence awarded by the learned magistrate should be enhanced. That petition was however dismissed.
( 3 ) AGAINST the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the complainant has come up in appeal on the ground that the conviction of Haji Sabar Ali who will hereafter be REFERRED TO to as the respondent, undersection 498 Indian Penal Code should not have been set aside and that he should be punished both in respect of an offence under Section 497 and Section 498 Indian Penal Code. The complainant has also filed a revision petition for the enhancement of sentence. Respondent Haji Sabar Ali has on the other hand filed a revision petition praying that there is no material for convicting him of the offence under section 497 Indian Penal Code and has therefore asked for setting aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and acquitting him of the offence of which he has been convicted.
( 4 ) THE facts are that the complainant Chaman Lal Monga, who will hereafter be REFERRED TO to as the appellant, was married to Rani Devi in 1950 according to Hindu rites. Out of this wedlock two male children were born. The appellant is employed as a clerk in Queen Mary s School, Tishazari, Delhi.
( 5 ) THE respondent Haji Sabar Ali was lunch contractor in that school. The appellant s allegations are that in November 1961 he and his wife came in contact with the respondent who with a motive, persuaded the appellant and his wife to start the business of bakery. The appellant fell into the trap of the respondent and the latter started paying visits to the house of the appellant regularly. He would visit the house of the appellant in his absence. The appellant alleged that the motive of the respondent was to commit adultery with his wife.
( 6 ) THE appellant received information from his friends including Satish Kumar, about the evil intentions of the respondent. He admonished his wife and warned the respondant not to visit his house. On 15-10-1962 the appellant saw his wife seated with the respondent in the front seat of the car of the respondent near Shahadra Bridge. He brought out his wife from the car and gave her bea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
