LexRAM CHANDRA BHAGAT versus STATE OF JHARKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 10 S.C.R. 1050 RAM CHANDRA BHAGAT V. STATE OF JHARKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2006) NOVEMBER 9, 2012 [R.M. LODHA, ANIL R. DAVE AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHYAY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 493 - Prosecution under - · C Accused and complainant living as husband and wife for nine years - Having two children out of this relation - Forms regarding marriage registration signed by accused as well as complainant - In the voter's list complainant mentioned as wife of the accused - The persons related to the complainant and o the accused also made to believe that the complainant was wife of the accused - Courts below convicted the accused u/ s. 493 - On appeal to Supreme Court, difference of opinion between the two Judges of Division Bench as regards applicability of s. 493 - Matter referred to Bench of Three E Judges - Held: There is sufficient evidence to show that the accused deceived the complainant which resulted in belief in the mind of the complainant that she was lawfully married to the accused, and made her cohabit with him - Thus, th~ ingredients of Section 493 have been fully established. F Words and Phrases - 'Deceit' - Meaning of, in the context of s.493 /PC. As per the prosecution, appellant-accused developed intimate relationship with the complainant. The G accused made the complainant believe that she had become his wife, and they stayed together as husband and wife for 9 years. They also had two children o_ut of this relation. Thereafter, the accused turned the complainant out of the house. On the complaint, the H 1050 RAM CHANDRA BHAGAT v. STATE OF JHARKHAND1051 accused was prosecuted. The courts below convicted A the accused u/s. 493 IPC. In appeal, the case was decided by Division Bench. One of the Judges was of the view that no offence u/s. 493 IPC was committed. The other Judge was of the view 8 that offence u/s. 493 IPC was made out. In view of the difference of opinion, the case was referred to Three Judges Bench. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Per Anil R. Dave, J. (for himself and Sudhanshu Jyoti Mukhopadhyay, J.): c 1. Upon perusal of Section 493 IPC, to establish that D a person has committed an offence u/s. 493 IPC, it must be established that a person had deceitfully induced a belief to a woman, who is not lawfully married to him, to believe that he is married to her and as a result of the afore-stated representation, the woman should believe E that she was lawfully married to him and there should be cohabitation or sexual intercourse as a result of the deception. [Para 9] [1056-G-H; 1057-A] 2.1. The accused-appellant had got a form, with regard to marriage registration, signed by the complainant. The form was signed by the accused and he also induced the complainant to sign the form so as F to get married. The form duly signed by both the persons had been exhibited and the signature of the appellant had G been identified. The afore-stated fact made the complainant to believe that the accused-appellant had married her and, therefore, she had started residing with him as his wife. In fact, the appellant did not marry the complainant. The persons related to the complainant and the accused were also made to believe that the H 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 10 S.C.R. A complainant was the wife of the appellant, though rituals necessary for Hindu marriage had never been performed. It is an admitted fact that no marriage had taken place between the complainant and the appellant, but only on the basis of the documents signed by the complainant B at the instance of the accused-appellant, the complainant was made to believe that she was a lawfully married wife of the accused-appellant. [Para 12] [1057-G-H; 1058-A-C] 2.2. As a result of the afore-stated deceitful act of the C accused-appellant, the complainant started residing with him as she believed that she had lawfully married the accused-appellant. The afore-stated fact was also reflected in the voters' list. In the voters' list the name of the complainant was shown as the wife of the appellant. As a result of the cohabitation, the complainant had given D birth to two children. The accused-appellant had acknowledged the fact that the said two children were his children. Several ceremonies in relation to the birth of the children had also been performed by the accused- appellant. [Para 13] [1058-D-F] E 2.3. Thus, upon perusal of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.