BANARSI RAUT Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point for consideration in this case is with regard to the meaning of the word "detention" in Section 498, Indian Penal Code. The material facts are that the petitioner has been convicted under that Section of detaining the wife of the complainant with the intention referred to in the Section. The woman was found in the house of the accused where she had been living for some time and it is admitted that sexual intercourse between them had taken place. There is no evidence with regard to forcible detention of the woman or that she was kept in the house of the petitioner by deceit.

(2.) The lower Appellate Court has referred to certain decisions of the Chief Court of the Punjab with regard to the meaning of the word "detention" in Section 498. In those cases it had been held that detention in that Section is not confined to detention by force or deceit but extends to the keeping of the woman by persuasion. As to the circumstances in which it can be inferred that there was such persuasion, great difficulty arises.

(3.) In a case referred to by the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner reported in Lachman Chamar V/s. Emperor ( it was held that an accused person could not be convicted under Section 498 merely because it was found that a married woman was living in his house of her own free will when the woman in question had no desire to return to her husband.