Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 761
High Court of Delhi
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Pradeepta Kumar Mohapatra
Versus
State
Crl. A. No. 233 of 2003
Decided on : 09-07-2013.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:S.S. Mishra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of deceitful inducement by a man on a woman, leading her to believe that she is lawfully married to him and then making her cohabit with him, as outlined in Section 493 IPC.
Headnote:
deceit - Section 493 IPC - [493 IPC] - The court analyzed the essence of Section 493 IPC, emphasizing the practice of deception by a man on a woman, leading her to believe that she is lawfully married to him and then making her cohabit with him. The court highlighted the broad significance of 'deceit' in the law and the necessity of misrepresentation by the offender to fulfill the first ingredient of Section 493 IPC. It also referenced a previous case to illustrate the application of the law in a similar context.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant got married to the appellant in 1982. The appellant filed a divorce petition, but the matter was compromised. However, he obtained an ex parte decree of divorce and continued to cohabit with the complainant. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 493 IPC for deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's actions did not fulfill the essential ingredients of Section 493 IPC, as there was no evidence of deceit causing a false belief of a lawful marriage and inducing the complainant to cohabit with him. The court also noted that the complainant had settled her disputes with the appellant and did not want to pursue the complaint.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant's actions constituted an offence under Section 493 IPC, involving deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage and cohabitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of misrepresentation by the offender to fulfill the first ingredient of Section 493 IPC and highlighted the broad significance of 'deceit' in the law. It also considered the complainant's settlement of disputes with the appellant as a factor in its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the orders of conviction and sentence against the appellant were set aside. He was discharged from his bail bonds, and the trial court record was to be sent back.
Sunita Gupta, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction order dated 3rd April, 2003 and order on sentence dated 4th April, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 29/2002 arising out of FIR No. 398/1998 PS Tilak Nagar under Section 420/498A/376 IPC.
2. Factual matrix of the case is: Complainant got married to appellant on 1st May, 1982. After her marriage, she got an appointment in Doordarshan and thereafter she went under training in Pune and thereafter she was transferred to Delhi. Her father was alleged to be the member of Parliament and was residing in Delhi, therefore, she also shifted to the residence of her father in Delhi. In 1993, the accused is alleged to have started harassing complainant by saying that he would divorce her. He also filed divorce petition against the complainant in Family Court at Bhuvneshwar of which she received a notice. However, due to intervention of parents of the complainant, the matter got compromised and thereafter they continued to live together. It was alleged that the accused assured the complainant and her parents that he would withdraw the divorce petition and believing this version and further believing that he might have withdrawn the petition, she continued to live with him. The accused, however, obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against the complainant on 6th January, 1996 but this fact was concealed by him and he continued to have sexual intercourse with her till 1998. During this period, she allegedly conceived thrice but she was persuaded by the accused to go for abortion which she did. In the month of February, 1998, while going to her office by car, she was chased by some unknown hired person just to frighten and harass her. In the month of February, 1996, she got refund amount of Rs.1.75 lacs from DDA in her name. Her husband by making false representation forced her to open a joint account and another account with her son in Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi. In joint account with minor son, Rs.1 lac was deposited and in another joint account with her, Rs. 75,000/-were deposited. However, without giving any information, he withdrew Rs.25,000/-from the joint account. On 18th March, 1998, he quarrelled with her, assaulted her and abused her son in the room and bolted it from outside and went away from there. She informed her parents who got confirmation from the Family Court, Cuttack that accused got a decree of divorce. After 2nd April, 1998, her husband did not return back and started harassing her on telephone by using abusive and unparliamentary language. On the basis of this compliant, FIR under Sections 420/376/498A IPC was registered. After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused.
3. Charges under Sections 498A/420/376 IPC were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution, in all, examined four witnesses out of whom the material witness was the complainant herself.
5. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he denied the case of prosecution. He denied that in the year of 1998, he co-habited with complainant concealing the fact of obtaining decree of divorce against her. His case was that he was not staying with the complainant since 1990 and only used to go to her residence occasionally in day time to see his son. He examined himself in his defence as DW1 as well as DW 2 Pradeep Kumar Puri.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that neither any offence under Section 420 IPC or 498A IPC or 376 IPC was made out, however, it was observed that since the accused concealed the factum of obtaining ex parte decree of divorce and continued to co-habit with the complainant, offence under Section 493 IPC is made out. Accordingly, vide order dated 3rd April,
