Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Atam Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 445 of 2017
Decided On : 14-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra
For the Respondent: Mr. S.C. Sharma, Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal
The main legal point established in the judgment is that subsequent marriage during the subsistence of an earlier marriage is void-ab-initio as per Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC, and the application of clause 'fourthly' of Section 375 of the IPC is not absolved by the complainant's prior knowledge of the accused's earlier marriage.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under Sections 376, 494, 495 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape, and Sections 494 and 495, which deal with the offence of bigamy. The court highlighted the knowledge of the complainant about the accused's earlier marriage and its influence on the application of Section 375 of the IPC. The court also emphasized the void-ab-initio nature of subsequent marriage during the subsistence of an earlier marriage, as per Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged that the accused induced her to marry him during the subsistence of his earlier marriage, committed sexual intercourse, and deceived her by concealing his marital status. The accused denied the allegations but did not lead any evidence in his defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of committing offences under Sections 376, 494, and 495 of the IPC based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. However, the court acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused's knowledge of the complainant's prior knowledge of his earlier marriage would affect the application of Section 375 of the IPC and the conviction under Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant's prior knowledge of the accused's earlier marriage did not absolve the accused of the offences, as subsequent marriage during the subsistence of an earlier marriage is void-ab-initio as per Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC. The court also emphasized the application of clause 'fourthly' of Section 375 of the IPC, which deals with rape with consent given under false belief of lawful marriage.
Final Decision: The court modified the sentence imposed by the lower court, considering the complainant's prior knowledge of the accused's earlier marriage, and ordered the accused to pay compensation to the prosecutrix. The accused was set free, subject to payment of the compensation, with a warning that failure to pay would result in the revival of the original sentence.
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 24.8.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 20-D/VII/2014, whereby learned court below while holding the appellant-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 376, 494 and 495 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as per description given herein below:-
“Under Section 376 of IPC - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
Under Section 494 of IPC - To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Under Section 495 IPC - The convict is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.”
2. The prosecution version as emerges from the record is that complainant-prosecutrix filed a complaint Ext.PW2/A alleging therein that in the year, 2006, she was married to a person namely Ranjeet Singh and out of their wedlock, a daughter was born. Above named person Ranjeet Singh died about four years ago, whereafter prosecutrix started residing in the house of her parents at Paniala, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. In the month of July, 2013, Ramesh i.e. PW-5, a relative of prosecutrix telephoned her with regard to match for re-marriage of the prosecutrix and asked her to come to Nurpur. Prosecutrix, her brother and mother came to Nurpur and met person namely Ramesh PW5 and Kirpal Singh PW6, whereafter accused was called. Accused disclosed that his wife had died 13 years ago and he is serving in Army. The maternal aunt of the prosecutrix Rano Devi also came to the Nurpur and engagement was finalized. Allegedly, prosecutrix insisted to see the house of the accused, but accused disclosed that he is in army and is going to Ambala. On 14.8.2013, accused came to village Paniala and insisted for the marriage on the same day and as such, their marriage was solemnized at Sug Bhatoli. Accused stayed with the prosecutrix in her house. Prosecutrix alleged that about three months ago, accused left the house of the prosecutrix and asked the prosecutrix not to get her daughter admitted in the school as she will be admitted in the school of his village Tharu, Tehsil Shahpur. But since accused did not return, the prosecutrix got suspicious and on 8.6.2014, she went to the house of the accused at Village Tharu, where she came to know that wife of the accused is alive and he has children. Allegedly, when the accused saw the prosecutrix and her mother, present in house, he ran away and subsequently, threatened the prosecutrix over the phone with dire consequences. Accused also threatened prosecutrix that he will commit suicide in case matter is reported to the police. Complainant-prosecutrix alleged that accused had deceived her and committed rape on her, as a consequence of which, she became pregnant. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, having been filed by the prosecutrix, formal FIR Ext. PW18/A came to be registered against the accused at police station Indora. During investigation, police also got prosecutrix medically examined at Community Health Centre, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., wherein she was reported to be pregnant. Police also got statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate. During investigation, police also found that accused had induced the prosecutrix to give him Rs. 60,000-70,000/- on the pretext of illness. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law, who on being satisfied tha
