SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 3

MADRAS HIGH COURT
Somasundaram, J.
X v. Y
Crl. A. No. 16 of 1968



No deceit was established regarding the marriage, leading to the appellant's acquittal under S.493 of the Penal Code.

Headnote:1. The conviction and sentence imposed under S.493 of the Penal Code were contested on the grounds of deception regarding marriage, where the core finding was that there was no deceitful assurance on part of the appellant. Key facts established that the appellant had no intent to deceive, and thus, the conviction was inappropriate. 2. The issues at hand were framed around the interpretation of deceit in the context of marital relations and the court found that the act did not constitute an offence under the cited section of the Penal Code, ruling that ascertainable circumstances demonstrated lack of deceit. 3. The final outcome led to the acquittal of the appellant as the conviction was found to be not substantiated by the evidence presented.

Table of Content
1. no deceit was established regarding the marriage. (Para 1)

1. Abdul Khader, the appellant herein, stands convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri Division, at Krishnagiri, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for an offence under S.493 of the Penal Code . S.493 of the Penal Code punishes persons who cohabit with a woman after deceitfully making a belief in her that she was legally married to him. The prosecution case was that on 16th January 1967, the appellant by deceit, made P.W. 1 believe, that she was married to him and after creating such a belief in her mind, he made her cohabit with him. The defence of the appellant was one of denial.
The learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant went through a form of marriage knowing that it was not the proper form and thereby deceived P.W. 1, and made her have sexual intercourse with him. The appellant is not a stranger to P.W. 1 because he is her cousin. He had given a new saree and ear ornaments to her. There was also an exchange of garlanda in the presence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and one Lal Batcha. They lived together as husband and wife for a few days. The appellant had taken P.W. 1 to his house, and after two days, his sister, brother - in - law and father had pushed P.W. 1, out. The appellant bad asked her to remain with her grand - mother stating that he would fix up a house and then take her. The appellant had also admitted to P.W. 5 that he had married P.W. 1. These circumstances establish that he never practised any deception on her. The section is not intended to punish one for contracting a marriage which turns out to be illegal. But it only punishes a man for obtaining the body of the woman by deceitfully assuring her that he had acquired that right by jus mariti. P.W. 1 in this case was lawfully married to the petitioner. Further, there has been no deceitful assurance or act on his part so as to attract S.493, Penal Code . The conviction is not correct. Both the conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under which he stands convicted. The bail bond will stand cancelled. The appeal is allowed.
Appeal Allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top