stated in her cross-examination that she solemnized the marriage with appellant out of her own sweet will as she was deserted by her husband and the Trial Court has also acquitted the appellant under Section 366, 368, 380 and 496 of the IPC. Further, the Trial Court has also failed to consider that no case under Section 498 of the IPC is made out as there is nothing to show that the appellant enticed or took her away or detained her with criminal intent or taking away her knowing that she was wife of other person with an intention that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or concealed or detained her with that intent and, therefore, no case under Section 498 of the IPC is made out. Similarly, so far conviction under Section 497 of the IPC is concerned, the Trial Court has failed to consider that under C lause (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 198 Cr.P.C., for institution of a case for the offence under Section 497, only husband is the competent person and even father and brother of the victim are not competent and the trial court without considering the embargo, convicted the appellant under Section 497 and 498 of the IPC, on the basis of complaint filed by uncle of victim, which is out and out perverse and not sustainable in the eye of
