BHUPINDER SINGH versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH .

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 10-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 640 
BHUPINDER SINGH 
'· 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH . 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1047 of 2008) 
JULY 10, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 375 clause 'Forthly' and 376 .'-
Rape - Second marriage by accqsed concealing t(1e [act of 
c his first marriage - Complaint by second wife~ Convfction by 
trial court and sentence of 7 years RI -High court confirming 
the conviction, but reducing the sentence to 3 years· RI in view 
of the fact that the second wife had the knowledge ·about the 
first marriage of the accused:.. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000( 
'( 
( 
0 
- granted - On appeal, held: Conviction justified. - . The case is 
covered under clause 'Fourthly' of s .. 37~ -:: In ii)e facts of the 
r 
case delay in filing the complaint, cannot wash· away the of-
fence - Interference with sentence· and· compensation not 
called for. 
E 
, 
Complaint was filed against the appellant-accused 
that he married the complainant, con~ealing the fact that 
he was a married· man. They lived as ·nus.~and and wife. 
The complain.ant also got pregnant. After. 4 years of her 
marriage, After 4 years of her marriage, she came to know 
F that the accused was already married. Around· a mQnth 
thereafter, she gave birth to a girl child. She fi'ed a com-
plaint and case .ulss .. 4201376/498 .. A IPC was registered. 
Accused pleaded that the compl~inant had th.e kno~ledge 
that he was already married. Triai court convicted h~in u/ 
G ss. 376 and 417 IPC and sentenced him to 7 years RI and 
fine of Rs. 10,0001- with default clause. High Court con-
firmed the conviction holding that the case was covered 
by clause 'Fourthly' of Section 375 IPC. But in view of the 
fact that the complainant surrendered herself to the ac-
H 
640 
i-
.. 
) 
BHUPINDER SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF 
641 
CHANDIGARH 
cused despite knowing that he was already married, the A 
sentence was reduced to 3 years R1 and granted com-
pensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. Hence the 
present appeals by the accused as well as by the com-
plainant. 
Dismissing the appeals, the court 
HELD: 1.1 It is not correct to say that when complain-
ant knew that he was a married man, Clause "Fourthly" 
B 
of Section 375 IPC has no application. Even though, the 
complainant claimed to have married the accused, which c 
fact is established from several documents, that does not 
improve the situation so far as the accused-appellant is 
concerned. Since, he was already married, the subse-
quent marriage, if. any, has no sanctity in law and is void 
ab-initio. In any event, the accused-appellant could not 0 
have lawfully married the complainant. A bare reading of 
Clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 IPC makes this position 
clear. [Para 11] [647-C,D] 
1.2. The date of knowledge claimed by the complain-
ant is 6.3.1994, but the first information report was lodged E 
on 19.9.1994. The complainant has explained that she . 
delivered a child immediately after learning about the in-
cident on 16.4.1994 and, therefore, was not in a position 
to lodge the complaint earlier. According to her, she was 
totally traumatized on learning about the marriage of the F 
accused-appellant. Though the explanation is really not 
satisfactory, but in view of the position in law that the ac-
cused was really guilty of the offence punishable under 
Section 376 IPC, the delayed approach of the complain-
ant cannot, in any event, wash away the offence. [Para G 
11] [647-E,F,G] 
2. The High Court has reduced the sentence taking 
note of the peculiar facts of the case, more particularly, 
the knowledge of the complainant about the accused 
being a married man. The High Court has given sufficient H 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
.
'( 
A and adequate reasons for reducing the sentence and 
awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The reasons in-
dicated by the High Court do not suffer from any infirmity. 
[Para 12] [647-G, 648-A] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
-+- ' 
B No. 1047 of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 6.9.2006 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal 
No. 698-SB/1999 
c 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 1048 of 2008 
Jasbir Singh Malik, R.K. Tripathi, P.K. Singh, Dharam Bir 
Raj Vohra, Jaspreet Gogia and Vipin Gogia for the Appellant. 
D 
Ajay Pal for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJlT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned .counsel for 
E the parties. 
2. Lea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.