Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1980, decided on 3rd May, 1980.
--‑‑S. 417 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 497 & 498‑Appeal against acquittal‑Adultery‑No evidence on record to infer that accused had any knowledge about married status of woman, subject of elopement and adultery‑ Essential ingredient of offence, held, lacks in evidence for proof of case so as to warrant conviction of accused‑Interference with order of acquittal declined, in circumstance.‑[Appeal against acquittal].
Raja Muhammad Akram Khan, Advocate‑General for the State.
Date of institution: 11th March, 1980.
On the move of the Government this appeal was made by the learned Advocate- General against the order of acquittal dated 30th October, 1979, passed by the Additional Sub‑Judge Magistrate 1st Class Muzaffarabad. By this order the accused‑respondent was acquitted of the charges levelled against him under sections 497 and 498 P. C. .The learned Advocate‑General was heard.
Allegedly Mst. Anwar Jan was claimed as a spouse of one Muhammad Rafique with whom her Nikah' was asserted and it was further said that the said woman was enticed away with a criminal intent by Mangta respondent having known that she is married to Muhammad Rafique, to commit adultery with her.
The offences according to the prosecution were committed on 2nd September, and the report was lodged with the police on 4th February, 1976. Such a long delay was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecu tion. It makes the case doubtful.
Mst. Anwar Jan was acquitted by the trial Court on the strength of a compromise.
There is not a single witness appearing before the Court who could have said that Mst. Anwar Jan was ever known by Mangta respondent to have married to Muhammad Rafique complainant and that it was within the knowledge of the former when the alleged elopement took place. Nor there is any evidence of the kind on record from which the inference could be drawn that the respondent knew the woman to be a married woman. Mere presumption that he must have known this fact will not do. For establishment of the commission of offences of adultery and enticing away with criminal intent a married woman to have illicit sexual intercourse with her, it is essential that a man charged should have knowledge or reason to believe about the matrimonial status of a woman enticed away so as to be subjected to adultery. If this ingredient lacks in evidence for proof of the case it would be deemed that prosecution has failed to make out a case against the man accused of so as to warrant his conviction for the said offences and punishment thereof. Therefore, there being no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed in limine.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer