Skip to content


Sunnat Mondal Vs. Makar Sheikh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930Cal138
AppellantSunnat Mondal
RespondentMakar Sheikh
Excerpt:
- .....j.1. if the evidence is believed, the complainant's wife was enticed away by a woman named hazari bibi, was taken away from hazari bibi's house by the present accused and was then detained or concealed for several days in the house of one mujahar fakir.2. in the charge framed against the accused in the trial court, it was alleged that he had taken the woman away from the complainant's custody and having regard to the nature of the evidence, it must be supposed (though this has not been clearly stated,) that the charge was intended to relate to the alleged taking away of the complainant's wife from hazari bibi's house. there is however, no finding that hazari bibi had the care of the woman on behalf of her husband, the complainant, nor is there any evidence on the record that.....
Judgment:

Patterson, J.

1. If the evidence is believed, the complainant's wife was enticed away by a woman named Hazari Bibi, was taken away from Hazari Bibi's house by the present accused and was then detained or concealed for several days in the house of one Mujahar Fakir.

2. In the charge framed against the accused in the trial Court, it was alleged that he had taken the woman away from the complainant's custody and having regard to the nature of the evidence, it must be supposed (though this has not been clearly stated,) that the charge was intended to relate to the alleged taking away of the complainant's wife from Hazari Bibi's house. There is however, no finding that Hazari Bibi had the care of the woman on behalf of her husband, the complainant, nor is there any evidence on the record that would justify such a finding. On the contrary, the evidence goes to show that the woman had already been taken away from the complainant's custody by Hazari Bibi before ever the accused appeared on the scene.

3. It is possible that, if the charge had been framed differently, and if the matter had been more fully investigated the accused might have been convicted in respect of the subsequent concealment or detention of the woman in Mujahar Fakir's house, but it is clear that, in the present state of the record, the conviction and sentence under Section 498, I.P.C., cannot be sustained. The Rule must therefore be made absolute, and in view of the very scanty nature of the evidence connecting the present applicant with the offence, I do not think it would be proper to order a retrial on an amended charge.

4. The accused will be released and his bail bond discharged and the fine if paid will be refunded.

Rankin, C.J.

5. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //