Batiram Keot Accused v. Bhandaram Keot Complainant Opposite Party.

1. The petitioner was convicted under S. 498, I.P.C, for having enticed away the wife of the complainant. Four points have been taken before us, one of which has reference to sentence. The only two to which it is necessary to refer are, that there is no proof of the marriage, and there is no proof that the petitioner knew or had reason to believe the woman to be the wife of the complainant. As regards the proof of the marriage, we find there are statements which if believed, would be sufficient to prove the marriage, because two witnesses speak of the giving of the woman in marriage; but as regards the accused's knowledge that the woman was a married woman, there is no evidence on the record to justify that finding; the learned Judge says that it must be presumed that the accused, when he proposed to marry the woman, must have made inquiries about her and come to know that she was a married woman.

2. We are not prepared to accept this view of the learned Judge. There must be evidence of some kind from which the inference could be drawn that the accused knew the woman to be a married woman before there could be a conviction under S. 498, I.P.C We must therefore set aside the conviction and the sentence passed on the petitioner and direct that he be released from bail.

V.B/R.K

3. Conviction set aside.