Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Jukni Alias Parbati vs Queen-Empress on 7 June, 1892
4. In my opinion a further inquiry must be ordered. In the first place, it is clear that there is nothing except the statement of the father of Badia to show that there is in the Tanti caste a custom of sagai of the nature alleged. It is, of course, well known that sagai in the form of re-marriage of widows is the normal condition in all except the five or six highest castes of Hindus in Bihar which as the Census figures show have the highest proportion of widows, and a few aspiring sub-castes. But a custom of sagai, while the first husband is still alive is, even assuming the custom to be a valid defence under Section 494, something which would require strict proof in respect of the particular caste in the particular area, and in respect of the conditions in which the custom operates. No doubt in the case of Jukni v. Queen-Empress 19 C. 627 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 860 the High Court upheld such a custom as an answer to a charge under Section 494; but it is clear that in that case it was proved that the first husband had relinquished the accused and that the custom of the caste sanctioned the marriage during the lifetime of the husband of the relinquished wife. The actions of the petitioner would go to show that he had not, at least willingly, relinquished his wife. Again it is remarkable that in the Police report or even in Mr. Niamatullah's argument for the opposite parly, there is no mention of a caste panchayat sanctioning the marriage of Badia and Chotelal: ordinarily the operation of such a custom would be contingent on the sanction of a caste panchayat.
1