FAIZANUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) IN this Criminal Appeal the 2 appellants, Patiram Bhagwandas and Mullu have challenged their conviction under Section 148 and Section 304, Part II read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for which each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period; of One year under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Raisen in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1979 decided on 7th December, 1979. ( 2 ) IN all 17 persons including the present appellants named above, were prosecuted under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for having formed an unlawful assembly in the evening of 20th August, 1978 committing riot and causing the death of Amar Singh at village Doobtalai, police station Ban, district Raisen. ( 3 ) IN brief the prosecution case was that in the evening of 20th August, 1978, a cow belonging to the deceased Amarsingh had entered the Bada of appellant Bhagwandall and when Ramesh (P. W. 1) the son of deceased Amar, Singh went to bring the cow from the Bada he was prevented by the appellant, Bhagwandas from taking it a way. The appellant, Bhagwan Das alongwith Laxman then proceeded to take the cow to the cattle pound but they were constructed by Ramesh (P. W. 1) and, therefore, the appellant Bhagwan das gave him a lathi blow. Ramesh shouted and called his father deceased Amar Singh. Amar Singh came and asked appellant Bhagwandas and Laxman not to take the cow to the cattle pound but they did not concede to his request and proceeded further reaching the river of the village where there were appellants Patiram and Mullu as also one Premo At the river 3 appellants, Prem and Laxman started beating the deceased Amar Singh with Jathis who shouted for help. Hearing the cries of Amar Singh his two sons Bhagatji (P. W. 6) and Mishrilal (P. W. 7) reached there and tried to save their father but they were also dealt with lathi blows. Hearing the cries of Amar Singh his two sons Bhagatji (P. W. 6) and Mishrilal (P. W. 7) reached there and tried to save their father but they were also dealt with lathi blows. Deceased Amar Singh fell down on the ground; Ramesh (P. W. 1) rushed to the police station Sari along with his maternal uncle Motilal where he lodged the first information report (Ex. P. 1) at about 9. 15 p. m. in the police station Sari the same day. Later on Chabbilal (P. W. 4), the brother-in-law of deceased Arnar Singh also reached- the police station Sari and informed that Amar Singh died on the spot and his two sons Bhagatji (P. W. 6) and Mishrilal (P. W. 7) were lying injured and unconscious. ( 4 ) DR. A. D. Tillu (P. W. 5) performed the autopsy on the dead body of Amar Singh and as per his post mortem report (Ex. P. 2) found as many as 11 injuries on his person. There was one incised wound on left mastroid legion; one incised wound in crancal cavity brain matter coming out; one incised wound on left fore-arm posteromedial aspect and other injuries were bruises and contusions. On dissection the sculp bones were found crushed in pieces at left temporal region. Left ulna was fractured and sixth rib was also factured on left side. These injuries were caused by hard and sharp object and remaining injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. All the injuries were found ante-mortem. In the opinion of the Doctor the cause of death was syncope due to shock resulting from fracture scalp and laceration of brain. ( 5 ) DR. R. C. Pandey (P. W. 12) had examined Ramesh Kumar (P. W. 1), the son of the deceased Amar Singh and as per his report (Ex. P. 20) found a abrasion above left wrist ulna index 1x 1/2 and another abrasion above left toe 1/2x 1/2. Both the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. Dr. Pandey (P. W. 12) also medically examined Bhagatji (P. W. 6) another son of the deceased and as per his report (Ex. P. 21) found 11 injuries on his person. Both the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. Dr. Pandey (P. W. 12) also medically examined Bhagatji (P. W. 6) another son of the deceased and as per his report (Ex. P. 21) found 11 injuries on his person. There was one lacerated wound at the junction of right and left parietal bone; one lacerated wound at the right parietal occipital junction vertical direction and one lacerated wound at the parietal region. Other injuries were bruises over the arm, thigh and leg etc. All the injuries were simple caused by hand and blunt object. All the injuries were simple in nature except injury No. 11. According to the evidence of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Tiwari (P. W. 8) there was fracture of right ring finger as per X-ray and the report (Ex. P. 3 and P. 4 ). Dr. R. C. Pandey (P. W. 12) also examined Mishrilal (P. W. 7) the third son of the deceased and as per his report (Ex. P. 22) found 11 injuries on his person which were caused by hard and blunt object. All the injuries were simple in nature. ( 6 ) FROM the accused side, appellants Patiram, Bhagwandas as also Laxman and Musaddi also sustained injuries in the same incident who were medically examined and that Musaddi was admitted in the hospital on the same night but he died in the hospital. Before his death he was medically examined by Dr. Pandey (P. W. 12) and as per his report (Ex. P. 24c) found one bruise on right forearm caused by hard and blunt object. A lacerated wound on his right parietal occipital region 21/2x x was also caused by ward and blunt object. A report of the incident was also lodged by the deceased Musaddi against the complainant part on 21. 8. 78 recorded at Sanha No. 713 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Ramesh (P. W. 1), Motilal (P. W. 2 ). Bhagatji (P. W. 6) and Mishrilal (P. W. 7 ). Laxman was also admitted in the hospital on the same day but he absconded and could not be traced. Dr. Pandey (P. W. 12) also examined Laxman and as per his report (Ex. Bhagatji (P. W. 6) and Mishrilal (P. W. 7 ). Laxman was also admitted in the hospital on the same day but he absconded and could not be traced. Dr. Pandey (P. W. 12) also examined Laxman and as per his report (Ex. P. 23) found 4 injuries on his person, one being lacerated wound at his right parietal region, two bruises one at right arm and another at right scapula and a abrasion below left knee joint. All the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. Appellant Patiram was also medically examined by Dr. Pendey (P. W. 12) and as per report (Ex. P. 25) found 3 injuries on his person, one being lacerated wound. All the injuries were simple caused by hard and blunt object. Dr. Pandey (P. W. 12) also examined appellant Bhagwandas who as per his report (Ex. P. 26) found 4 injuries one his person, one lacerated wound on his right palm, and 3 bruises one over right arm above the elbow, another at left forearm and the 3rd at left gluteal region. All these injuries were simple caused by hard and blunt object. ( 7 ) AT the trial, the appellants took the defence that the cow of the deceased had entered the Bada of appellant Bhagwandas and when appellant Bhagwandas and Laxman were taking the cow to the cattle pound they were prevented from doing so by deceased Amar Singh and his 3 sons and when Bhagwandas and Laxman decline to release the cow they were dealt by lathis by the deceased and his 3 sons. They further took the plea that when the appellant Patiram and deceased Musaddl came to rescue of the appellant Bhagwandas and Laxman they were dealt with lathi blows as a result of which Musaddi died in the hospital and the appellants Patiram Bhanwandas and Laxman also received serious injuries. ( 8 ) ON appreciation of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that i has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that 3 appellants and the absconding accused Prem Lodhi and Laxman had assaulted with lathis, Luhangis and Farsa to Amar Singh as a result of which he died. ( 8 ) ON appreciation of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that i has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that 3 appellants and the absconding accused Prem Lodhi and Laxman had assaulted with lathis, Luhangis and Farsa to Amar Singh as a result of which he died. Learned trial Judge also came to the conclusion that the accused party had collectively sustained 13 injuries caused by the complainant party whereas the complainant party had in all 24 Injuries collectively besides the injuries on the deceased Amar Singh who had 11 injuries on his person. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge though accepted that the accused party had acted in exercise of right of private defence of person but further took the view that the appellants were vindictive and they have used very excessive and disproportionate force in assaulting the deceased Amar Singh and his sons and thereby exceeded the right of defence and, therefore, found them guilty under section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, convicted them under Sections 148 and 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as stated above against which this appeal has been directed. ( 9 ) IT may be noted that the learned Sessions Judge on scrutiny of the evidence recorded the following conclusion (i) In my opinion from the evidence it is conclusively proved that on that day the trouble started because accused Bhagwandas and Laxman had taken the cow of the deceased to the cattle pound and did not forgo it on the request of Ramesh (P. W. 1) and deceased Amar Singh. (Paragraph 40) (ii) Ramesh (P. W. 1) further states that his father deceased Amar Singh also requested Bhagwandas not to take the cow to the cattle pound but they did not listen but during these talks they reached the river. (Paragraph 41) (iii) The immediate cause was the cow being taken to the cattle pound by the accused Bhagwandas as and Laxman which had undisputedly entered into the Bada of Bhagwandas probably because the cow must have done some harm inside the Bada. (Paragraph 41) (iii) The immediate cause was the cow being taken to the cattle pound by the accused Bhagwandas as and Laxman which had undisputedly entered into the Bada of Bhagwandas probably because the cow must have done some harm inside the Bada. (Paragraph 49) (iv) So far as the accused Patiram is concerned, he is the son of deceased accused Musaddi who according to Ramesh P. W. 1) was in the possession of the Bada. (Paragraph 50) (v) This is the reason why these witnesses have eliminated the presence of Musaddilal on the spot and have not admitted the injuries on the person of Bhagwandas, Laxman, Patiram and Musaddi. It is no doubt true that they have spoken lie in not admitting the injuries on their persons. But there was a cogent reason to say so. It is quite natural that when Bhagatji (P. W. 6) and Mishrilal (P. W. 7) heard his father crying at the river they must have gone to his rescue with lathis and in order to save him must have used the same. (Paragraph 55) (vi) (vi) It is also proved that accused Patiram, Bhagwandas, absconding accused Laxman and the deceased accused Musaddilal have also sustained in injuries during the incident. (Paragraph 65) (vii) It is undoubtedly proved that arms were used by both the parties. But there is no evidence to come to the finding as to who assaulted first. The prosecution witnesses have not admitted that they gave beating to any of the accused. They did not say as to how these accused persons sustained injuries. (Paragraph 68) (viii) Since there is no direct evidence to come a definite finding as to who was the aggressor, therefore, the benefit must be given to the accused persons. But even if it is held that the deceased Amar Singh was the aggressor, yet for reasons already stated above, these accused persons have used disproportionately excessive force on Amar Singh and his sons. (Paragraph 71) (ix) From the evidence on record it cannot be conclusively said as to which of the accused had caused fatal injuries but all these 5 accused persons have collectively used force by being the members of the unlawful assembly and, therefore, all of them are vicariously liable for the same under section 149 I. P. C. The accused persons have exceeded the right of defence. (Paragraph 72) ( 10 ) ON scrutiny of the evidence on record, I find that the aforesaid conclusions are fully borne out and, therefore, accept the same. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances stated above, the only question that arises for my determination in this appeal is whether the appellants had exceeded their right of defence so as to sustain their conviction under section 148 and section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 12 ) FROM the evidence on record and the conclusion recorded by the learned trial Judge, it is conclusively established that the Bada in question was in possession of the deceased accused Musaddilal as admitted by Ramesh (P. W. 1 ). It is also an admitted fact that the cow of the deceased Amarsingh had entered the Bada and, therefore, the appellant Bhagwandas had seized the cow and that he and Laxman were taking the cow to the cattle pound when Ramesh (P. W. 1), the son of the deceased Amarsingh wanted the release of the cow but Bhagwandas and Laxman declined to release the cow. The evidence goes to show that Ramesh (P. W. 1) and his deceased father Amarsingh followed Bhagwandas and Laxman upto the river persuading them to release the cow and it is at the river the incident took place. The evidence shows that other two sons of the deceased Bhagatji (P. W. 6) and Mishrilal (P. W. 7) had also reached there in all probabilities armed with lathis. All of them had made endeavour to release the cow. In Ramratan v. State of Bihar1 their Lordships took the view that when a person seizes cattle on the ground that they were trespassing on his land and causing damage to his crop or produce and gives out that he was taking them to the pound, he commits no offence of theft however mistaken he may be about the right to that land or crop. The remedy of the owner of the cattle so seized is to take action under section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871. But he has no right to use force to rescue the cattle so seized. The remedy of the owner of the cattle so seized is to take action under section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871. But he has no right to use force to rescue the cattle so seized. In view of these observations, Amarsingh and his sons were wholly unjustified in seeking the release of the cow and the accused party was wholly justified in taking the cow to the cattle pound. ( 13 ) FROM the evidence on record and the conclusions recorded by the learned trial Judge, it is not clear as to who was the aggressor at the river and who opened the assault at first. Admittedly appellant Patiram, Bhagwandas and the absconding accused Laxman and deceased Musaddilal had sustained injuries on their person. Not only this but one of them, that is, Musaddilal died in the hospital due to the injuries caused to him by the complainant party in the same incident. The medical report (Ex. p. 24) of deceased Musaddilal has been proved by Dr. Pandey (P. W. 12) which shows that Musaddilal had a lacerated wound at his right parietal occipital region 21/2x x. Appellant Patiram had also lacerated wound on the verticals I x 1/2 x and abrasion at left scapula 1 x 1 Appellant Bhagwandas too had lacerated wound at his right palm and 3 bruises in the right and left arms and left gluteal region. But the prosecution witnesses expressed total ignorance regarding these injuries found on the person of the appellants and the accused party. No explanation is forthcoming for the said injuries. ( 14 ) IN Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar their Lordships took the view as under: In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can drawn the following inferences: 1. that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; 2. that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; 3. that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; 2. that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; 3. that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 1281 and A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 1674. Relied on. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which completes in probability with that of the prosecution one. ( 15 ) IN the case before me, as stated earlier there is no direct evidence as to who was the aggressor and who opened the assault first but the injuries on the person of appellants Patiram and Bhagwandas as also on the person of absconding accused Laxman and deceased Musaddilal probabilised the right of private defence set up by the accused persons and it would be legitimate to draw the inference as pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Lakshmisinghs case (supra ). In the present case, in view of the injuries found on the person of the appellants and other members of the accused party especially in view of the fact that Musaddilal one of the member of the accused party had died due to the injuries sustained by him in the same incident at the hands of the complainant party, it could not be said that the appellants had exceeded their MADHYA right of private defence of person because if anyone faced with the situation as pointed out above in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the appellants could not have weighed in gold scales the assault that they made on the deceased in order to keep themselves within the right of private defence. 3. 3. ( 16 ) IN Radhe and others v. Emperor it was held that when once the Court has found that a right of private defence exists, it is very difficult to expect the accused to weigh with golden scales what maximum amount of force is necessary to keep within that right. ( 17 ) IN Balla Prasad v. State of M. P. 4 a Division Bench of this Court held as under Where in a murder charge, the story of the assault first by the deceased on the accused with a ballam appeared reasonably probable and if, under these circumstances, the accused hit the deceased on his head with a stick in his hand, it could not be said that he had no justification for it or that he had exceeded the right of private defence. Faced with a situation where the deceased was an aggressor and was armed with a ballam, which he could have used as such, even though his first stroke was with the handle part of it, the accused could have a reasonable apprehension of danger to his life was therefore justified in completely disabling his adversary. If in that attempt he happened to inflict the injury with a little more force than absolutely necessary, he could not be held liable. It is for such a situation that it is often said that one cannot weigh in golden scales what maximum amount of force is necessary to keep within the right of private defence. The law makes every allowance to a person who apprehends a reasonable danger to his life from his adversary, and with intent of self preservation strong upon pursued his defence a little further then what to perfectly by stander may seen absolutely necessarytt. x x x x Faced with a situation where the deceased was an aggressor and was armed with a ballam, which he could have used as such even though his first stroke was with the handle part of it, we agree with, Homles, J. in Beard v. United States,5 that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an up-lifted knife, and hold that, under the circumstances, the appellant could have a reasonable apprehension of danger to his life and was therefore justified in completely disabling his adversary. We are further of opinion that if in that attempt he happened to inflict the injury with a little more force than absolutely necessary, he could not be held liable. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was not right in holding that the appellants had exceeded their right of private defence of person. ( 18 ) AS stated above, the accused party was trying to take the cow to the cattle pound to which they were lawfully entitled as the cow had admittedly entered the Bada and caused some damages. The object of the accused party was thus to defend the rescuing or release of the cow by preventing the complainant party to take the same to the cattle pound. The assembly, therefore, could not be designated as an unlawful assembly because the object was lawful, that is to say, taking of the cow to the cattle pound and that their common object was not to kill Amarsingh or to assault his sons. (See State of Bihar v. Nathu Pandey and others. 6 ( 19 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the conviction of the appellants could not be sustained. ( 20 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 148 and Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code with sentence there under is set aside and they are acquitted of the offence charged with. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 1. AIR, 1965 S. C. 926. 2. AIR. 1976 s. c. 2263 3. AIR. 1923 All. 357. 4. AIR. 1961 M. P. 241. 5. (1895) 158 U. S. 550, 6. AIR. 1970 s. c. 27. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872) Text of relevant provisions as amended up to 26. 12. 1. AIR, 1965 S. C. 926. 2. AIR. 1976 s. c. 2263 3. AIR. 1923 All. 357. 4. AIR. 1961 M. P. 241. 5. (1895) 158 U. S. 550, 6. AIR. 1970 s. c. 27. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872) Text of relevant provisions as amended up to 26. 12. 1983 - [113-A. Presumption as to abetmnt of suicide by a married woman.-When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, cruelty shall have the same meaning as in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)]. [114-A. Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape.-In a prosecution for rape under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (g) of sub-Section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of woman alleged to have been raped and she states, in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (Text of Relevant Provisions as amended upto 26-12-1983) ( 21 ) A. Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences etc.- (I) Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Section 376, Section 376a, Section 376b, Section 376c or Section 376d is alleged or found to have been committed (hereinafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) extend to any printing or publication of the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim if such printing or publication is (a) by or under the order in writing of the officer- in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation into such offence acting in good faith for the purposes of such investigation ; or (b) by, or with the authorisation in writing of, the victim; or (c) where the victim is dead or minor or of unsound mind, by, or with the authorisation in writing of, the next-of kin of the victim: Provided that no such authorisation shall be given by the next-of-kin to anybody other than the chairman or the secretary, by whatever name called, of any recognised welfare institution or organisation. Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section recognised welfare institution or organisation means a social welfare institution or organisation recognised in this behalf by the Central or State Government. (3) Whoever prints or publishes any matter in relation to any proceeding before a court with respect to an offence to in Sub-section (1) without the previous permission of such court shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation-The printing or publication of the judgment of any High Court or the Supreme Court does not amount to an offence within the meaning of this section]. 2[sexual offences 375. Rape-A man is said to commit rape who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions: First-Against her will. Secondly- Without her consent. Thirdly-With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any( 22 ) RULES for the heading of Rape and for Sections 375 and 376 by Act No. 43 of 1983. Sec. 3, w. e. f. 26. 12. 1983 person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly-With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Sec. 3, w. e. f. 26. 12. 1983 person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly-With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly-With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation-Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Exception-Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape. 376. Punishment for rape- (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by Sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. Whoever, (a) being a police officer commits rape (i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed ; or (ii) in the premises of any station house whether or no situated in the police station to which he is appointed; or (iii) on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or (b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in his custody or such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or (c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail; remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a womens or childrens institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or (d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or (e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or (f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or (g) commits gang rape, ( 23 ) SHALL be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years. Explanation 1-Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub-section. Explanation 2 - womens or childrens institutiont means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widows home or by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children. Explanation 3-T1hospitalt means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation. Explanation 3-T1hospitalt means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation. 376a. Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation-Whoever has sexual intercourse with his own wife, who is living separately from him under a decree of separation or under any custom or usage without her consent shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine. 376b. Intercourse by public servant with woman in his custody-Whoever, being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and induces or seduces, any woman, who is in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him, to have sexual intercourse with him, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. 376c. Intercourse by superintendent of jail, remand home, etc.-Whoever, being the superintendent or manager of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a womens or childrens institution takes advantage of his official position and induces or seduces any female inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution to have sexual intercourse with him, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1 - superintendent in relation to a jail, remand home or other place of custody or a womens or childrens institution includes a person holding any other office in such jail, remand home, place or institution by virtue of which he can exercise any authority or control over its inmates. ( 24 ) EXPLANATION 2-The expression woment. or childrens institution shall have the same meaning as in explanation 2 to Sub-section (2) of Section 376. 376d. ( 24 ) EXPLANATION 2-The expression woment. or childrens institution shall have the same meaning as in explanation 2 to Sub-section (2) of Section 376. 376d. Intercourse by any member of the management or staff of a hospital with any women In that hospital -Whoever, being on the management of a hospital or being on the staff of a hospital takes advantage of his position and has sexual intercourse with any woman in that hospital, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation-The expression hospitalt shall have the same meaning as in explanation 3 to Sub-section (2) of Section 376. ] [chapter XXA Of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband 498a. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation-For the purposes of this section, cruelty means (i any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the women; or (ii) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. ] 1. Ins. after Section 113 by Act No. 46 of 1983. Section 7, w. e. f. 26-12-1983. 2. Ins. after Section 114 by Act No. 43 of 1983, Section 6 w. e. f. 26-12-1983. 1. Ins. after section 228 by Act No. 43 of 1983, Sec. 2, w. e. f. 26. 12. 1983. 2. Soules for the heading of Rape and for Section 375 376 by Act No. 43 of 1983, Sec. 3 w. e. f. 26. 12. 1983. 1. Ins, after Chapter XX by Act No. 46 of 1983, Sec. 2, w. e. f. 26. 12. 1983. .