The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of deceit causing a false belief of existence of a lawful marriage for the offence under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code, and the necessity of establishing the elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

1) In this appeal the sole appellant has assailed the judgment dated 04.02.2003 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 148 of 1998/61 of 2002 whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 493 and 312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Penal Code’ for brevity) and sentence dated 04.03.2003 imposing the punishment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 2000/-for the offence under Section 493 of the Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-for the offence under Section 312 of the Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the accused shall further go simple imprisonment of six months and one month, respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2) It appears that the judgment reflects that the judgment has been pronounced on 04.02.2003. However, the ordersheet reveals that on that date the case was posted for arguments and thereafter, it suffered several adjournments, i.e., 07.02.2003, 10.02.2003, 17.02.2003, 18.02.2003, 20.02.2003, 24.02.2003, 28.02.2003, 03.03.2003 and finally on 04.03.2003 the judgment has been signed. It is not understood how the judgment has been signed on 04.03.2003, but it has been pronounced on 04.02.2003. It appears that there is mistake on the part of the Presiding Judge. While correcting the judgment it should have been appropriately dated. However, keeping in view the fact that he has retired no adverse comment need be passed against him.

3) The case of the prosecution in short is that a complaint was filed by the complainant (name withheld) before the Officer Incharge, Bagdehri Police station, District-Dumka now Jamtara. On 02.08.1995, inter alia, alleging that the complainant is residing in her village with her mother and two sisters and three brothers. The complainant is aged about 17 years. The appellant, who is living just adjacent to the house of the complainant, started visiting the house of the complainant from the month of Paush. The further case of the complainant is that the appellant taking advantage of poverty of the complainant’s family insisted the complainant to make sexual relations with the accused. The complainant further asserted that the appellant brought the complainant to the village Gosainthan and made a promise after putting his hand on the head of the complainant that he has married her. The complainant believing that marriage as legal and valid gave her consent of co-habitation with the appellant. The complainant further stated that the complainant and the accused live in the house of the complainant as husband and wife.

The further case of the prosecution is that on the first day of Falgun, the complainant became pregnant. The appellant brought the complainant to Rajnagar for her treatment. At Rajnagar the complainant was given some medicine by the doctor and on account of taking medicine the complainant suffered miscarriage. The complainant again requested the appellant to perform the marriage ceremony according to the social custom, but the appellant fled away from the village. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Sarpanch and after enquiry the Sarpanch forwarded the matter to the Officer Incharge, Bagdehri Police Station, but the Officer Incharge did not institute any case as such, a complaint petition bearing P.C.R. Case No. 252/95 was filed by the complainant before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.

On the basis of the complaint petition Kundahit (Bagdehri) P.S. Case No. 71/95 was instituted and after investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 493,376 and 312 of the Penal Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and after completing of formalities the case was committed to the court of Sessions.

4) The defence took the plea of total denial and stated that he has been falsely i