ALAMGIR & ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 464 · Decided: 14-11-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

November 14. 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
ALAMGIR & ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
(GA.TENDRAGADKAR and A. K. SARKAR ,JJ.) 
Criminal. Triat--Detaining married woman with criniinal intent 
-Detaining, if must be against will of u.1oman-Scntcnce, enhance-
ment of-Indian Penal Code, I86o (XLV of I86o), s. 498-Code of 
Criminal Procedure, I898 (V of I898), s. 439. 
One R, the wife of S, disappeared from her husband's house. 
She was traced to the house of the appellants, A and his brother 
B. When S went there and asked A to let his wife go with him 
A told him that he had married her and B threatened Sand 
asked him to go away. The appellants were charged under s. 498 · 
Indian Penal Code for detaining R, when they knew or had 
reason to believe that she was the wedded wife of S, with intent 
to have illict intercourse with her. The appellants pleaded that 
R was not validly married to S and that she had not been detain-
ed by them inasmuch as she was tired of living with Sand had 
voluntarily and of her free will come to stay with them. The 
Magistrate found the appellants guilty, convicted them and 
sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two months 
each. On appeal the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but 
reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 50/- each. The appellants 
filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court issued a 
notice of enhancement and after hearing the appellants dismiss-
ed the revision and enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprison-
ment for six months each. 
Held, that detention in s. 498 means keeping back a wife 
from her husband or any otl\er person having the care of her on 
behalf of her pusband. Such keeping back may be by force; 
but it need not be by force. It can be the result of persuasion, 
allurement or blandishments which may have either caused the 
willingness of the woman, or may have encouraged, or co-operat-
ed with, her initial inclination to leave her husband. The object 
of the section is to protect the rights of the husband and it can-
not be any defence to the charge to say that, though the husband 
has been deprived of his rights, the wife is willing to injure the 
said rights and so the person who is responsible for the willing-
ness has not detained her. A was rightly convicted. as the 
charge of detention was p.roved against him on the findings of 
the Courts below that he had offered to marry R and had there-
by either persuaded or encouraged her to leave her husband's 
house. But the charge was not made out against B as it was not 
proved that he had offered any inducement, blandishment or 
allurement to R for leaving the protection of her husband and 
for refusing to return to him. 
,I
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
465 
Sundara Dass Tevan, (1868):1ViMad. H. C.R. 20; Ramaswamy 
Udayar v. Raju Udayar, A. I. R. (1953) Mad. 333; Emperor v. ]an 
Mohomed, (1902) IV Born. L.R. 435; Broomfield, J., in Emperor v. 
Mahiji Fula, (1933) I.L.R. 58 Born. 88; Emperor v. Ram Narayan 
Baburao Kapur, (1937) 39 Born. L. R. fir; Mahadeo Rama v. 
Emperor, A.LR. (1943) Born. 179; Prithi Missir v. Barak Nath 
Singh, I.L.R. (1937) 1 Cal. 166; Bipad Bhanjan Sarkar v. Emperor, 
I.L.R. (1940) · 2 Cal. 93; Banarsi Raut v. Emperor, A;I.R. (1938) 
Pat. 432 and Bansi Lal v. The Crown, (1913) Punj. L.R, 1066, 
approved. 
Divatia, J., in Emperor v. Mahiji Fula, (1933) I.L.R. 58 Born. 
88, Mabarak Sheikh v. Ahmed Newaz, (1939) 43 C.W.N. 980 and 
Harnam Singh v. Emperor, A.LR. (1939) Lah. 295, disapproved. 
Held further, that the High Court was not justified in en-
hancing the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment, and 
it should have only restored the sentence passed by the trial 
Court. The question of sentence is normally in the discretion 
of the trial Court and the High Court can enhance the sentence 
only if it is satisfied that the sentence imposed by the trial Court 
is unduly lenient, or, that.in passing the order of sentence, the 
trial Court had manifestly failed to consider the relevant facts. 
The sentence of two months simple imprisonment imposed by 
the trial Court was not so unduly or manifestly lenient as not to 
meet the ends of justice. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 187 of 1956. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated December 7, 1955, of the Patna. High 
Court in Criminal Revision No. 875 of 1954, a.rising 
out of the judgment a.nd order dated Ma.y 31, 1954, of 
the Court of the Additio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.