Alamgir & Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Citations: Alamgir & Anr. Vs State of Bihar, AIR 1959 SC 436:1959 Supp (1) SCR464:1959 SCJ 1959 Cr LJ527

Date of Judgement: 14/11/1958

Equivalent Citations: AIR 1990 PH 310

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1956

Case Type: Criminal Appeal

Petitioner/Appellant: Alamgir & Another

Defendant/Respondent: The State of Bihar

Bench: Hon’ble Justice P.B.Gajendragadkar and Hon’ble Justice A.K.Sarkar

Court: Supreme Court of India

Statues Referred:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 366, 497,498
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439

Cases Referred:

• Ramaswami Udayar Vs Raju Udayar, AIR (1953) Mad 333
• Emperor Vs Mahadeo Rama, AIR (1943) 45 BOMLR 295
• Bipad Banjhan Saekar Vs Emperor, AIR (1940) Cal 477
• Emperor Vs Mahiji Fula, AIR (1933) 35 BOMLR 1046, 147 Ind Cas 43
• Emperor Vs Ram Narayan, AIR (1937) 39 BOMLR 61
• Prithi Missir Vs Harak Nath Singh, AIR (1936) Cal 450, 166 Ind Cas 290
• Banarsi Raut Vs Emperor, AIR (1938) Pat.432
• Mabarak Sheikh Vs Ahmed Newaz, AIR (1939) 43 C.W.N. 1980
• Harnam Singh Vs Emperor, AIR (1939) Lah 295

Facts:

• Mrs Rahmita, the legally wedded wife of Saklu Mian found missing from her husband’s house on 21/10/1952.
• The complainant made look for her for a long time yet couldn’t follow her whereabouts.
• At last, he documented a case at the police headquarters after he was informed by Shakoor Mian that he had seen the complainant’s spouse at the place of the two appellants.
• When Saklu Mian went there along with Shakoor Mian, Musan Mian and Suleman Mian they found Mrs Rahmita there.
• At the point when Saklu went there and requested that let his wife go with him then the appellant said that he had married to Rahmita and his brother threatened Saklu Mian and asked him to go away.
• The Magistrate viewed the appellants to be liable, indicted them and condemned them to go through straightforward detainment for a long time each.
• On the claim, the Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction yet decreased the sentence to a fine of Rs. 50/ – each.
• The appellants recorded an update under the watchful eye of the High Court. The High Court gave notification of upgrade and after hearing the appellants excused the update and improved the sentence to thorough detainment for quite some time each.

Issues Involved:

• Whether the sentenced given by the High Court of Bihar under section 498 of Indian Penal Code is fair and just for both the appellants.

Contention of Petitioner/Appellant:

Name of the Counsel: B.K. Saran and K.L. Mehta

The counsel for the petitioners contended that:

• Rahmita was not legitimately hitched to Saklu and that she had not been kept by them since she was worn out on living with Saklu and had deliberately and of her free will come to remain with them.
• That the proof for the situation unmistakably shows that the lady was disappointed with her husband and had gone out and assurance deliberately and of her freedom of thought. In case having subsequently gone out she came to remain with the appellants and they permitted her to remain with them, it can’t be said that they have confined her inside the importance of section. 498 of Indian Penal Code.
• As per him, the word ” detains ” is utilized in section. 498 of Indian Penal Code should fundamentally suggest that the lady confined is reluctant to remain with the denounced and has been constrained so to remain with him without wanting to, and want. It is hard to envision that, in case a lady will remain with an individual, one might say that the individual has kept her.

Contention of Defendant/Respondent:

Name of the counsel: B.H. Dhebar and T.M. Sen

The counsel for the respondent contended that:

• As the witness, Shakur muslin and Suleman Mian has seen Mrs Rahmita at the house of the appellant. So, it is proved that she was there at the house of the appellant.

Judgement:

• It is possible that Rahmita was disappointed with her husband other and needed deliberately to leave her husband; however, on the proof, it has been held that she more likely than not been urged or prompted not to return to her significant other in light of the fact that she realized that she would track down prepared asylum and security with litigant No. 1 and she probably anticipated wed him. Indeed, appealing party No. 1 professes to have hitched her. Consequently, there can be presumably capped he expected to have unlawful sex with her. That is the impact of simultaneous discoveries of reality recorded against litigant No. I; and it would not be available to him to challenge their accuracy or respectability in the current allure.
• The position, subsequently, is that, on the discoveries of reality made by the lower courts against litigant No. It should be held that he has been properly sentenced under Section 498. of Indian Penal Code That takes us to the subject of sentence forced on him by the High Court in its revisional purview. We are fulfilled that the High Court was not advocated in coordinating litigant No. I to experience thorough detainment for six months by way of enhancement of the sentence.
• The High Court without a doubt has locale to upgrade such sentence under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; however, this ward can be appropriately practised provided that the High Court is fulfilled that the sentence forced by the preliminary appointed authority is unduly indulgent, or, that, in passing the request for sentence, the preliminary adjudicator had neglected to think about the applicable realities.
• It is true that, in enhancing the sentence, the High Court has observed that “women in this country, whether chaste or unchaste, must be protected and that it is the duty of the court to see that they are given sufficient protection”. We are inclined to think that the consideration set out in this observation is really not, very helpful and not decisive because, as we have already observed, that sec 498 of Indian Penal Code does not purport to protect the rights of women but it safeguards the rights of husbands.
• Additionally, in the current case, plainly Mrs. Rahmita, who is a lady of a free upright person, was disappointed with the complainant, who is her subsequent spouse, and was able to wed appealing party No. 1. In such a case, however appealing party No.I is blameworthy under Section 498 of Indian Penal Code , it is hard to acknowledge the perspective on the High Court that the sentence of two months’ straightforward detainment forced on him, by the preliminary court was so unduly or plainly merciful as not to meet the closures of equity.
• The case of appellant No. 2 is clearly different from that of appellant No. 1. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not implicate appellant No. 2 in the act of persuasion or offering blandishments or inducements to Mrs. Rahmita. The only evidence against this appellant is that when the complainant went to take away his wife appellant No. 2 threatened him.
• As we would like to think, the conviction of litigant No. 2 isn’t upheld by any proof on the record. The outcome is the allure liked by litigant No. 2 is permitted, the request for conviction and sentence passed against him is saved and he is requested to be absolved and released.

Appeal of Appellant No. 1 dismissed and Appellant No. 2 was acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Confinement in the setting should mean holding back a spouse from her better half or some other individual having the consideration of her for the benefit of her better half with the imperative expectation. Such holding back might be forcibly, yet it need not be forcibly. It very well may be the consequence of influence, allurement or blandishments which may either leave caused the ability of the lady, or may have empowered, or co-worked with, her underlying tendency, to leave her significant other. We can’t help thinking that assuming the ability of the spouse is unimportant and it can’t be a safeguard in cases falling kindling the initial three classes referenced in Section 498 of Indian Penal Code, it can’t be treated as a material variable in managing the last class of instances of detainment referenced in the said segment.
• Realizing that Rahmita had hitched his sibling, appealing party No. 2 advised the complainant to leave, which can’t lawfully legitimize the deduction that he probably offered any incitement, blandishment or allurement to Rahmita for leaving the security of her better half and declining to get back to him. Without a doubt, the courts underneath has not considered the situation of this litigant independently on its own benefits by any means.

Conclusion:

In this particular case, the main contention was whether the woman is detained or she was living wilfully at the appellants’ house. In Indian society, it is very difficult to say that women have done something wrong when the matter is related to physical intercourse. the judges have seen various societal aspects and they carefully listened to the eyewitness of the case and finally decided that she was detained and accordingly they gave punishment to the accused. also, the brother of the accused was not responsible for detaining Mrs Rahmita he had just threatened Saklu Mian so the judges freed him from Section 468 of Indian Penal Code. 

Drafted by: Aditi Bharti, MM Shankarrao Chavan Law College, Pune

Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider

Published On: December 27, 2021 at 12:30 IST