The judgment established the principle that conversion to Islam does not ipso facto dissolve a Hindu marriage, and the accused can be held liable for offenses committed against the victim.

Sen, J—Gul Mohammad was convicted under Sections 342 and 497, Penal Code, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment on each count on 4-10-1945 in criminal case No. 211 of 1945, by the Magistrate, First Class, Hoshangabad. The sentences were to run concurrently. The convictions and sentences were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, on 9-11-1945 in criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1945. The revision application was filed on 15-11-1945 against the appellate order and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail on that date. The application was admitted for hearing parties on 30-1-1946. The Crown is not represented though notice of the hearing of the application was given.

2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated thus: Mt. Gindia is a daughter of Motilal (P.W. 2) and Mt. Mulia (P.W. 3), who are residents of Hoshangabad. Gindia was married about the year 1940 to Babulal (P.W. 1) resident of Joshipur, Bhopal State, which was on the other side of the Narbada. Gindia attained puberty after her marriage and the marriage was consummated. They lived together as husband and wife for nearly three years and a half at Joshipur. In Baisakh (April-May of 1944) Gindia came to Hoshangabad on the occasion of the marriage of her cousin, daughter of her uncle, and stayed at her parents' place in Mohalla Balaganj. Gul Mohammad the accused also resides in that Mohalla and was a close neighbour of her father, Motilal, who is a police constable. On 12-5-1944, at about 10 A.M. when Gindia and her mother, Mulia, were returning from a bath in the Narbada, they were decoyed by the accused on the false pretext that they were required for taking baskets from his house and they would be paid their wages and were taken to Jumerati Mohalla, where they were kept locked inside a room. Under threat they were compelled to go to the Police Station House to make a report about their conversion to Islam and were taken subsequently to a mosque for conversion. After their conversion they were married; Gindia was married to Gul Mohammad and her mother was married to Badruddin (also called Badri.) After marriage they were forced to live in the house of the accused. During the period Gindia lived in the house of Gul Mohammad, he had sexual intercourse with her.

3. Reports were made to the police by Motilal (P.W. 2) and Babulal (P.W. 1) about the incident but no action was taken. Babulal therefore, filed a complaint on 26-9-1944 against the accused under Sections 342, 497 and 498, Penal Code, and he has duly explained the delay in making the report. Gindia was rescued on 7-6-1945 from the custody of the accused under a warrant issued by the Magistrate on 26-5-1945. The prosecution examined six witnesses. Gindia and her husband Babulal and her parents Motilal (P.W. 2) and Mulai (P.W. 3) deposed to the fact that Gindia was married to Babulal and that at the time of the marriage Gul Mohammad was a next door neighbour of Motilal, her father. This evidence was accepted by the learned Magistrate who held the marriage duly proved. This finding was affirmed by the first appellate Court and has not been challenged before me in revision.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused was that the complainant had no right to lodge a complaint under Section 497, Penal Code, against the accused as he had ceased to be her husband at the time of the filing of the complaint. Two reasons were urged in support of this contention. The first was that divorce is permitted by the custom of the caste to which the complainant belonged and that he had divorced his wife Gindia according to custom. There is no evidence of divorce. In his cross-examination after the charge Babulal stated that there was a document to which he and his father-in-law were parties. Under that document he was to get Rs. 150 from his father-in-law whether Gindia returned or not. The document was not filed in the case and the witness stated that he was prepared to file it, but was