Banarsi Raut vs Emperor

Agarwala, J.—The only point for consideration in this case is with regard to the meaning of the word "detention" in Section 498, 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.

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.

In a case referred to by the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner reported in Lachman Chamar Vs. Emperor, it was held that an accused person could not be convicted u/s 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.

Similarly in Prithi Missir Vs. Harak Nath Singh, it was held that a conviction u/s 498 could not be sustained in the absence of evidence showing that the accused did something which had the effect of preventing the woman from returning to her husband.

In the first of these cases it has to be observed that the accused was not aware of the fact that the woman was a married woman, and from the facts stated in the report of the second case, it does not appear that there was evidence of the knowledge of the marriage or of the accused having had sexual intercourse with the woman. In the Punjab case it was held that providing shelter for a married woman was such an inducement as to amount to detention within the meaning of Section 498. That appears to be the accepted interpretation of the word "detention" in Section 498 and the only question is whether in the circumstances of this case it can be held that there was such an inducement or persuasion of the woman as would come within the meaning of the word "detention." The circumstances are that the accused kept her in his house and according to his own statement had sexual intercourse with her. The Courts below have inferred from these facts that there was persuasion and I am not prepared to differ from the inference drawn from those facts. The result is that this application must be dismissed.