Validity of consent in criminal offences hinges on truthfulness; consent obtained through deception nullifies its validity, allowing for conviction under IPC for false marriage and sexual offences.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In these appeals filed under 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the appellants/accused persons, 4 in number, in SC No. 100 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, North-West, Rohini, Delhi, assail the judgment and order on sentence dated 12.07.2017. Vide the impugned judgment and order on sentence, Accused no. 1 (A1) has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 494 , 495, 496 and 376 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC ). Accused no. 2, 3 and 4 (A2, A3 and A4) have been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 376 .

2. The prosecution case is that in the year 2002, A1 enticed PW1, a minor girl aged 14 years, out of the lawful guardianship of her parents and took her away, and thus committed the offence of kidnapping. Pursuant to the same, Crime No. 47/2002, Sultan Puri Police Station, under Section 363 IPC was registered at the instance of PW4, the father of PW1.While so, on 22.11.2006, A1 married PW1, making her believe that he was a bachelor, despite the fact that he was already married. On 13.05.2007, A1 established physical relation with PW1, for which all arrangements like renting room, were made by A2 to A4. On 14.05.2007, A1 and A4, on the pretext of the illness of PW1’s father (PW4), left her at her parental home, at which time, A1 disclosed to her that he was already married and that it was in order to save himself from the earlier case of kidnapping, the marriage with PW1 had been solemnised. Thus, as per the chargesheet/final report dated 07.06.2007, the accused persons are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 494 , 495, 496 and 376 read with Section 120B .

3. Based on Exhibit PW1/A FIS of PW1, crime no.919/2007 Sultan Puri Police Station, that is, Exhibit PW3/A FIR, was registered by PW3, Head Constable. PW13, Sub- Inspector, conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, submitted the chargesheet/final report dated 07.06.2007 before the trial court, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.

4. When the accused persons were produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court as per order dated 04.10.2010, framed a Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 494 , 495, 496 and 376 read with Section 120B IPC , which was read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were examined and Exhibits PW1/A-C, PW1/DA-DB, PW1/D1-D8, PW3/A-B, PW4/A, PW5/A, PW6/A, PW7/A, PW9/A, PW10/A, PW10/C, PW12/A, PW13/A-H and Mark PW4/PX were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with respect to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. All the accused persons denied the said circumstances and maintained their innocence. A1 denied that he had kidnapped PW1 in the year 2002 or that he had performed any marriage with her. He denied having taken PW1 to Arya Samaj Mandir or having signed any affidavit or photographs in connection with the marriage. He further denied that PW1 was taken to his parental house or that she resided with him in any rented accommodation or that he had established physical relations with her. He stated that the father of PW1 had