Short Note : 1. Ramubai (P.W. 4) was married to the appellant Madan some time in the year 1971. Though she lived with her husband for some years, but on account of being allegedly ill-treated by her husband, she returned to her father Bherulal (P.W. 5). After her return, the appellants went to the house of Bherulal on 7-10-1977 armed with lathi and Farsi, trespassed into Bherulal's house, assaulted Ramubai and Bherulal with lathi and Farsi and thereafter forcibly carried away Ramubai to their house where was allegedly subjected to sexual intercourse by her husband. According to Ramubai and Bherulal as per agreement (ExP.5), the marriage of Ramubai with Madan was dissolved and since then they ceased to be husband and wife. As a result of the assault made by the appellants, both Bherulal and Ramubai were injured. Their injuries were examined by the doctors and it was found that Ramubai had received a couple of abrasions and Bherulal had sustained the fracture of the right arm. On these allegations both the appellants were prosecuted for the offences under sections 451, 452, 366, 325, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Held: The fact that Ramubai continued to be the wife of Madan is not disputed in these appeals also. Admittedly she had not returned to her husband's home for a sufficiently long time. Accordingly, both the brothers, namely, the present appellants must have gone to bring back Ramubai from Bherulal's house, Of course, the manner in which they approached Bherulal's house and used violence to bring back Ramubai cannot in law be said to be justified. If Ramu bai was not returning home, they could adopt some lawful methods to bring back her but certainly they could not use violence in the manner in which they used violence, Consequently, the conviction of the appellant Madan u/s 451 IPC and the appellant Moolchand U/s. 452 IPC has to be treated as justified. The appellant has not been found guilty of causing any hurt and was, therefore. convicted only under section 451 IPC and sentenced to six months R.I. The accused Moolchand has been convicted under sections 452, 325 and 323 IPC and sentenced to one year, and four month's rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has not been found guilty of causing any hurt and was, therefore. convicted only under section 451 IPC and sentenced to six months R.I. The accused Moolchand has been convicted under sections 452, 325 and 323 IPC and sentenced to one year, and four month's rigorous imprisonment. Under these circumstances, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the sentence of one years R.I. awarded under sections 452 and 325 IPC would be reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment, on each count. The sentence of four months' R.I. under section 323 IPC should be maintained. An the sentences shall run concurrently. Sentence reduced. Appeal partly allowed.