Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Asthana, J.
SHYAM LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 1351 Of 1954
Decided On : 04/26/1957
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 156 OF 1953 - [SECTION 498, INDIAN PENAL CODE] - [SECTION 199, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE] - [COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 498, INDIAN PENAL CODE - REQUIREMENTS - SUFFICIENCY OF ALLEGATIONS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 4 (H), CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE] - [CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 498, INDIAN PENAL CODE - NECESSITY OF PROPER COMPLAINT BY HUSBAND - SPECIFICATION OF SECTION IN COMPLAINT NOT MANDATORY - SUFFICIENCY OF ALLEGATIONS CONSTITUTING OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 498, INDIAN PENAL CODE] - [EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - DISBELIEF OF WITNESSES' TESTIMONY BY TRIAL COURT - RELIANCE ON SUCH TESTIMONY FOR CONVICTION - IMPROPRIETY] - [APPEAL - ALLOWANCE - INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO APPELLANT] - [CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Shiam Lal, was employed at the shop of Babu Lal, whose wife, Smt. Govindi, went missing along with their younger daughter and some ornaments and cash. Babu Lal filed a complaint alleging that Smt. Govindi had been abducted or had left with the accused. Smt. Govindi was later found in Court with the accused, but they escaped. She was brought back to her husband's house, while their daughter was taken away by the accused and later handed over to the police. Babu Lal filed a complaint under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 498 (enticing or taking away a married woman). The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, relying on the testimony of Smt. Govindi and one Sukha. However, the court disbelieved the evidence of other witnesses and found that Smt. Govindi had a liaison with the appellant and had willingly gone away with him. The court also did not believe the prosecution's case of forcible abduction, rape, or conspiracy.
Issues: 1. Whether a proper complaint under Section 199, Code of Criminal Procedure, is necessary for a conviction under Section 498, Indian Penal Code. 2. Whether the complaint must specifically mention the section under which it is made or if allegations constituting an offence under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, are sufficient. 3. Whether the evidence of Smt. Govindi and Sukha was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A proper complaint under Section 199, Code of Criminal Procedure, is necessary for a conviction under Section 498, Indian Penal Code. 2. The complaint need not specifically mention the section under which it is made. It is sufficient if the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence under Section 498, Indian Penal Code. 3. The evidence of Smt. Govindi and Sukha was not sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, were set aside.
( 1 ) THE appellant Shiam Lal has been convicted under Section 498,. P. C. , by the learned sessions Judge, Agra, and has been sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment.
( 2 ) IT appears that Smt. Govindi was living with her husband Babu Lal and father-in-law Jiwa ram in Mohalla Mohanpura, Police Station Rakabganj, in the district of Agra. The accused shiam Lal was employed at the shop of Babu Lal. On the 12th January 1952, Babu Lal found that his wife with the younger daughter was missing from the house and that some ornaments and cash were also missing. He made a report about it at Police Station Rakabganj the same day at 3 oclock in the afternoon and in that report he suspected the appellant Shiam Lal, Gopi Lal and Balwanta. It was alleged in the report that Smt. Govindi had either been taken in connection with illicit intimacy or she herself had gone away with the accused. No witnesses were mentioned in the report and it was stated that their list shall be submitted in Court. Govindi was found in Court on the 7th April 1952, along with the accused. They wanted to take her away by force but were unsuccessful. She was brought by the brother of Babu Lal to his house. Her daughter, however, was taken away by the accused and it was on the 9th April 1952, that she was said to have been handed over to the complainant by the police to whom she had been taken by the Panchayat committee Of Nagla Albatia. Babu Lal filed a complaint on the 13th December 1952, in the Court of the City Magistrate, agra, against seven persons under Ss. 364, 366, 376, 392 and 120.. P. C. It was alleged in this complaint that Smt. Govindi was taken to the house of Rani Devi by Ram Bharose accused that the accused Shiam Lal, Gopi, Bhoji and Balwanta were present there from before, that they forcibly put her in a tonga and carried her away to Shahganj and she was detained there in the hut of Balwanta accused for four or five days. It was, further, alleged that from there she was taken to Gwalior by Shiam Lal accused who kept her as his wife and committed rape on her several times, that Shiam Lal in conspiracy with the other accused wanted to sell her to a Jat and on the 7th April 1952, they brought Govindi to court and wanted to have an application made and it was there that she was caught by Chokhey laj, brother of the complainant, who happened to be present in Court. It was, further, alleged in the report that the accused had also taken away several ornaments of Smt. Govindi and Rs. 200 in cash which she had with her at the time.
( 3 ) THE accused denied that they had abducted Smt. Govindi from the house of Smt. Ram Devi or that she was taken to the house of Smt. Ram Devi by Ram Bharose accused. Their case was that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. The accused Balwanta denied in his statement that Smt. Govindi was kept in her house by Shiam Lal accused. The accused Shiam lal stated that he had been in the service of the complainant Babu Lal for some time, that he had not paid him his wages and when he demanded it from him he got him falsely implicated in this case.
( 4 ) THE prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of the case. They are P. W. 1 Babu Lal, p. W. 2 Chokhey Lal, P. W. 3 Tej Singh, P. W. 4 Sunna Nath, P. W. 5 Smt. Govind. P. W. 6 Sayid ahmad, Constable and P. W. 7 Sukha. P. W. 1 Babu Lal is the complainant and husband of Smt. Govind. He is not an eyewitness of the occurrence. He stated that Shiam Lal accused was in his service for about three months and used to go inside his house and had an opportunity of meeting smt. Govind. He denied that any salary was due to the appellant or that he had falsely implicated him in the case on account of it. P. W. 2 Chokhey Lal is the brother of Babu Lal complainant. He is also not an eyewitness of the occurrence. His evidence is that he was informed by one Smt. Kasturi of his village that she had seen the accused Shiam Lal and Smt. Govindi in Court about three month
AI
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
