Strict proof of marriage is required to sustain charges under Section 494 IPC; concealment of prior marriage constitutes cheating under Section 417 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

BISWAJIT PALIT, J.

This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and order of conviction of sentence dated 13.12.2024 delivered by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in connection with case No.S.T. 18 (Type-1) of 2023 under Section 494/417 of IPC. By the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, Learned Trial Court below sentenced the convict Mangal Saha to suffer RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- ID to suffer SI for 2 months for the offence, punishable under Section 494 of IPC and also the convict was further sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- ID to suffer SI for 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC. It was further ordered that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. J. Bhattacharjee assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. S. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the appellant-convict and also heard Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R. Saha appearing on behalf the State-respondent.

3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel Mr. J. Bhattacharjee appearing on behalf of the appellant, first of all drawn the attention of the Court referring the contents of the FIR and the evidence on record submitted that although in this case initially charge under Section 494, 376(1), 417 of IPC was framed by the Learned Trial Court below but on conclusion of trial and at the time of delivery of judgment Learned Court below acquitted the appellant from the charge levelled against him under Section 376(1) of IPC for want of evidence. But according to the Learned Counsel, the Learned Court below also failed to appreciate the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution and although found him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 494/417 of IPC but the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

4. It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the prosecution suffers from various infirmities which the prosecution has failed to explain before the Court at the time of hearing. It was also argued that from the version of the informant-cum-alleged victim, it appears that, she lodged complaint against the appellant in three occasions but prosecution failed to satisfy the Court what are the consequences of those complaints. It was also submitted that, the appellant accused thoroughly cross- examined the informant-cum-victim and other witnesses of the prosecution and from the evidence of the informant and some of the material witnesses it appears that, those witnesses during the course of their cross-examination deviated from their earlier statement made to IO during investigation rather for the first time they made / developed a new study before the Court. Prosecution in this case could not explain this. More interestingly, according to the Learned Counsel for the appellant to satisfy the ingredients of Section 494 of IPC, the prosecution before the Learned Trial Court could not place any cogent materials on record because to prove a charge under Section 494 of IPC certain parameters are there and if those parameters are not fulfilled in that case there is very least scope on the part of the Court to punish a person guilty for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC.

5. It was further submitted that although Learned Court below framed charge against the appellant under Section 417 of IPC but as the ingredients of Section 494 of IPC could not be established by the prosecution, so the prosecution also failed to establish the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC. But Learned Court below misinterpreting/misappreciating the evidence on record found the appellant to be guilty for which the interference of the Court is required and urged for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence delivered by Learned Court below. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel for the appellant also referred few citations:

In Sima Roy