REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.439 OF 2006
RAM CHANDRA BHAGAT .....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND ....RESPONDENT.
1 J U D G M E N T
1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1) Being aggrieved by an order dated 8th September, 2005 passed by
the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.788 of 2005,
whereby the order of conviction of the appellant was confirmed by the High
Court, the appellant has filed this appeal. By virtue of the impugned
order, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months has been confirmed.
2) This appeal was initially heard by this court but after hearing the
appeal, one of the learned judges was of the view that the appellant could
not have been convicted for committing an offence under Section 493 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’), whereas the said view was not
accepted by another learned judge.
3) In the afore-stated circumstances, the appeal was placed before
the Hon’ble Chief Justice, who referred it to a three-judge Bench and,
therefore, it had been placed before us.
4) As the facts have been duly discussed by both the learned
judges in their respective orders, we narrate the same in a nutshell.
According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant had acquaintance
with the complainant and upon developing intimate relationship with her, by
his actions he made the complainant to believe that she had become the wife
of the appellant herein and thereby they had stayed together for nine years
as husband and wife and during that period the complainant had given birth
to two children - a son and a daughter. Thereafter, the allegation is that
the appellant had turned the complainant out of his house.
5) In the afore-stated circumstances, a complaint was filed by the
complainant and in pursuance of the said complaint the appellant was
prosecuted. After a full-fledged trial, the appellant was convicted by an
order dated 20th December, 2003 passed in G.R. Case No.27 of 1992
(Lohardaga P.S. case No.12/92) by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Lohardaga. An appeal filed against the order of conviction, being Criminal
Appeal No.1 of 2004, was dismissed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Lohardage. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of
the appeal, the appellant had filed Criminal Revision No.788/2005 before
the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi and the same was rejected by an order
dated 8th September, 2005, which lead to the filing of this appeal.
6) We heard the learned counsel and also meticulously perused the
impugned judgments and the record pertaining to the case.
7) Before dealing with the case in hand, let us see as to how and
why the learned judges of this Court had come to different conclusions.
8) As we are concerned with the provisions of Section 493 of the
IPC, it would be just and proper to look at the said section before we deal
with the subject.
“Section 493: Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing
a belief of lawful marriage – Every man who by deceit causes any
woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is
lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual
intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
9) Upon perusal of Section 493 of the IPC, to establish that a
person has committed an offence under the said Section, it must be
established that a person had deceitfully induced a belief to a woman, who
is not lawfully married to him, that she is a lawfully married wife of that
person and thereupon she should cohabit or should have had sexual
intercourse with that person. Looking at the afore-stated section, it is
clear that the accused must induce a woman, who is not lawfully married to
him, to believe that he is married to her and as a result of the afore-
stated representation, the woman should believe that she was lawfully
married to him and there should be cohabitation or sexual intercourse as a
result of the deception.
10) One of the learned judges was of the view that no deception was
practised by the appellant and, therefore, no offence under the provisions
of Section 493 of the IPC had been committed. It was the view of the
learned judge that though the appellant had acted in an immoral manner
which might not be approved by the society but he had not committed any
offence in the eyes of law by staying with the complainant for about nine
years. On the other hand, on appreciation of the evidence, another learned
judge had confirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below and had
come to the conclusion that the appellant had in fact practised deception,
which led the complainant woman to believe that she was a lawfully married
wife of the appellant though in reality she was not a lawfully married wife
of the appellant and thereupon she had cohabited with the appellant. In
these circumstances, another learned judge wanted to confirm the concurrent
findings of the courts below.
11) Upon perusal of the evidence, we also are of the view, like the
courts below that the appellant had practised deception and as a result
thereof the complainant believed that she was a lawfully married wife of
the accused and thereafter there was cohabitation and sexual intercourse as
a result of the deception.
12) Upon perusal of the evidence we find that upon being acquainted
with the complainant, the accused had developed a close relationship with
the complainant. He used to visit the complainant from time to time and he
had promised the complainant to marry her. Upon perusal of the evidence,
we further find that the accused-appellant had got a form, with regard to
marriage registration, signed by the complainant. The form was signed by
the accused-appellant and he also induced the complainant to sign the form
so as to get married. The form duly signed by both the persons had been
exhibited and the signature of the appellant had been identified. The
afore-stated fact made the complainant to believe that the accused-
appellant had married her and, therefore, she had started residing with him
as his wife. In fact, the appellant did not marry the complainant. The
persons related to the complainant and the accused were also made to
believe that the complainant was the wife of the appellant, though rituals
necessary for Hindu marriage had never been performed. It is an admitted
fact that no marriage had taken place between the complainant and the
appellant but only on the basis of the documents signed by the complainant
at the instance of the accused-appellant, the complainant was made to
believe that she was a lawfully married wife of the accused-appellant.
13) As a result of the afore-stated deceitful act of the accused-
appellant, the complainant started residing with him as she believed that
she had lawfully married the accused-appellant. There is sufficient
evidence on record to show that the complainant had resided with the
accused-appellant and the afore-stated fact was also reflected in the
voters’ list. In the voters’ list the name of the complainant was shown as
the wife of the appellant. As a result of the cohabitation, the
complainant had given birth to two children. The accused-appellant had
acknowledged the fact that the said two children were his children.
Several ceremonies in relation to the birth of the children had also been
performed by the accused-appellant.
15) Thus, upon perusal of the evidence, we find that there was
sufficient evidence to the effect that the accused-appellant has deceived
the complainant, which ultimately resulted into a belief in the mind of the
complainant that she was a lawfully married wife of the accused-appellant,
though she was not.
16) The afore-stated evidence which has been found by all the
courts below is sufficient to show that the complainant was made to believe
by the deceitful act of the accused-appellant that she was lawfully married
to the accused-appellant. The complainant had also cohabited with the
appellant and had sexual intercourse with the accused-appellant and thereby
she had given birth to two children also.
17) In the afore-stated set of circumstances, when there is ample
evidence to the effect that only on the deceitful representation of the
accused-appellant the complainant believed herself to be a lawfully married
wife of the accused-appellant and as she had cohabited with the accused-
appellant, there cannot be any doubt with regard to commission of an
offence under the provisions of Section 493 of the IPC. Moreover, we do not
find any error committed by the courts below in coming to the final
conclusion with regard to commission of the offence by the appellant and,
therefore, we confirm the order passed by the High Court.
18) In these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal. The bail bonds
shall stand cancelled and the accused-appellant is directed to surrender to
undergo the remaining period of sentence with immediate effect.
..................................................J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
………….......................................J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHYAY)
New Delhi
November 09, 2012
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 439 OF 2006
Ram Chandra Bhagat …. Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand
….Respondent
JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
I have had the benefit of going through the judgment proposed
by my esteemed brother Anil R. Dave, J. I entirely agree with his view,
however, I wish to add few lines of my own.
2. Section 493 IPC does not need to be reproduced by me as the
text of Section 493 has already been quoted in the lead judgment. When a
man deceitfully induces a woman to have sexual intercourse with him causing
her to believe that she is lawfully married to him, such man commits an
offence under Section 493 IPC. The essence of an offence under Section 493
IPC is, therefore, practice of deception by a man on a woman as a
consequence of which the woman is led to believe that she is lawfully
married to him although she is not and then make her cohabit with him.
3. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary [Fifth Edition] explains ‘deceit’
as follows:
“‘Deceit, ’ deceptio, fraus, dolus, is a subtle, wily shift or
device, having no other name; hereto may be drawn all manner of
craft, subtilly, guile, fraud, wilinesse, slight, cunning,
covin, collusion, practice, and offence used to deceive another
man by any means, which hath none other proper or particular
name but offence”.
4. Black’s Law Dictionary [Eighth Edition] explains ‘deceit’ thus
:
“The act of intentionally giving a false impression ?the juror’s
deceit led the lawyer to believe that she was not biased?.
2. A false statement of fact made by a person knowingly
or recklessly (i.e., not caring whether it is true or false)
with the intent that someone else will act upon it…….”
5. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar [2nd Edition, Reprint
2000], ‘deceit’ is described as follows :
“Fraud; false representation made with intent to deceive;
‘Deceit, ‘deception of fraud’ is a subtle, wily shift or device,
having no other name, In this may be included all manner of
craft, subtlety, guile, fraud, wiliness, slight, cunning, covin,
collusion, practice and offence used to deceive another may by
any means, which hath none other proper or particular name but
offence’.
6. ‘Deceit’, in the law, has a broad significance. Any device or
false representation by which one man misleads another to his injury and
fraudulent misrepresentations by which one man deceives another to the
injury of the latter, are deceit. Deceit is a false statement of fact
made by a person knowingly or recklessly with intent that it shall be acted
upon by another who does act upon it and thereby suffers an injury. It is
always a personal act and is intermediate when compared with fraud. Deceit
is sort of a trick or contrivance to defraud another. It is an attempt to
deceive and includes any declaration that misleads another or causes him to
believe what is false. If a woman is induced to change her status from that
of an unmarried to that of a married woman with all the duties and
obligations pertaining to the changed relationship and that result is
accomplished by deceit, such woman within the law can be said to have
been deceived and the offence under Section 493 IPC is brought home.
Inducement by a person deceitfully to a woman to change her status from
unmarried woman to a lawfully married woman and on that inducement making
her cohabit with him in the belief that she is lawfully married to him is
what constitutes an offence under Section 493. The victim woman has been
induced to do that which, but for the false practice, she would not have
done and has been led to change her social and domestic status. The
ingredients of Section 493 can be said to be fully satisfied when it is
proved – (a) deceit causing a false belief of existence of a lawful
marriage and (b) cohabitation or sexual intercourse with the person
causing such belief. It is not necessary to establish the factum of
marriage according to personal law but the proof of inducement by a man
deceitfully to a woman to change her status from that of an unmarried to
that of a lawful married woman and then make that woman cohabit with him
establishes an offence under Section 493 IPC.
7. When the criminal appeal came up for hearing before a two-Judge
Bench, the Judges differed in their views. One of the Judges, Markandey
Katju, J., held that Section 493 IPC was not attracted as there was no
proof of lawful marriage although the appellant lived with the complainant
for nine years and had two children by her. On the other hand, the other
Judge, Gyan Sudha Misra, J. was of the view that for an offence under
Section 493 there should be an inducement of belief in the woman that she
was lawfully married to the accused and the inducement of belief of a
lawful marriage cannot be interpreted so as to mean or infer that the
marriage necessarily had to be in accordance with any custom or ritual or
under Special Marriage Act. She observed as follows :
“9. Section 493 IPC in my opinion do not presuppose a marriage
between the accused and the victim necessarily by following a
ritual or marriage by customary ceremony. What has been clearly
laid down and emphasized is that there should be an inducement
of belief in the woman that she is lawfully married to the
accused/appellant and the inducement of belief of a lawful
marriage cannot be interpreted so as to mean or infer that the
marriage necessarily had to be in accordance with any custom or
ritual or under Special Marriage Act. If the evidence on record
indicate inducement of a belief in any manner in the woman which
cannot possibly be enlisted but from which it can reasonably be
inferred by ordinary prudence that she is a lawfully married
wife of the man accused of an offence under Section 493 IPC, the
same will have to be treated as sufficient material to bring
home the guilt under Section 493 IPC. Interpretation of the
Section in any other manner including an assertion that the
marriage should have been performed by customary rituals or in
similar manner only in order to establish that a belief of
marriage had been induced, is bound to frustrate the very object
and purpose of the provision for which it has been incorporated
in the Indian Penal Code which is clearly to prevent the
deceitful act of a man inducing the belief of a lawful marriage
for the purpose of cohabitation merely to satisfy his lust for
sexual pleasure.”
8. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the position
stated above.
9. The prosecution has been able to prove – (i) the appellant and
the victim woman had been living for a period of nine years like a husband
and wife, (ii) the accused and the victim woman had two children from that
relationship, (iii) an application (Exhibit 3) was made by the
accused/appellant for information to the Special Marriage Officer,
Lohardaga regarding his marriage with the victim woman on 13.4.1982, (iv)
an agreement (Exhibit 2) was executed for marriage certificate on 4.6.1982
wherein the accused admitted that he was living a normal family life as a
married couple with Sunita Kumari (complainant) for the last one year and
Sunita Kumari was his wife, (v) voters’ list (Exhibit 6) of the assembly
electoral list of Lohardaga for the year 1984; Voters’ List (Exhibit 6/1)
for the year 1988 and another Voters’ List (Exhibit 6/2) for the year 1993
indicated that victim woman was shown as wife of the accused, (vi) the
appellant and the victim lived together as a normal couple at different
places of posting in course of service and
(vii) the appellant had practiced deception on the complainant causing a
false belief of existence of lawful marriage and making her cohabit with
him in that belief. Thus, the ingredients of Section 493 IPC have been
fully established by the prosecution. The offence under the said Section
is made out beyond any reasonable doubt.
10. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and
is dismissed.
……………………..J. (R.M.
Lodha)
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 9, 2012.
-----------------------
15
