AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellants, Baleshwar Singh who has been found
guilty for an offence punishable under Section 493 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years vide judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 14.01.2015 passed by First Addl. Sessions Judge
cum Special Judge (SC/ST), Bhojpur at Ara in SC/ST Case
No.49/2012.
PW.3, Kalawati Devi had field Complaint Petition
No.768(C) of 2011 which was sent to the P.S. concerned for
registration and investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a result
of which Bhojpur Sadar SC/ST P.S. Case No.13/2011 was registered
under Section 376, 3(i),(x),(xi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act followed
with an investigation as well as submission of charge sheet
facilitating the trial which concluded in a manner, subject matter of
instant appeal.
The allegation having put forward at the end of the
aforesaid Kalawati is that she happens to be resident of village-
Sandesh. While she was aged about 18-20 years, appellant/accused
began to visit her place and in the month of March 1990, after saying
that you happens to be like his wife but, evaded himself to marry in
accordance with law on the plea that on account thereof, he will be
defamed, disgraced in the society even then, physical intimacy was
there though, she called it being victimized on account of constantly
raped at his end. During midst thereof, there was promise at the end
of the accused to provide her independent land, building, livelihood
and under garb of aforesaid promise, offer she was regularly raped.
On account of aforesaid deceitful promise, complainant could not
marry. At the present stage, when the health of complainant is
deteriorated, she has been deserted. She persuaded him but gone
unheeded. Panchayati was also convened but could not yield fruitful,
whereupon, instant case has been filed.
Defence case as is evident from mode of cross-
examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. It has also been pleaded that
complainant at the instance of Madheshwar Verma (PW.2) tried to
blackmail him, and on his protest, this false case has been filed at the
instance of aforesaid Madheshwar Verma.
In order to substantiate its case prosecution had
examined altogether four PWs who are PW.1 Chandra Kumar Singh,
PW.2 Madheshwar Verma, PW.3 Kalawati Devi and PW.4 Satya
Narayan Uraon, the Investigating Officer. Side by side also exhibited
Ext.1-Signature of PW.3 over complaint petition, Ext.2-Signature of
Officer-in-charge over formal FIR.
Charge against appellant was framed against the
appellant under Section 376, 493 of the IPC, 3(i)(x)(xi) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act however, after analyzing the evidence available on the
record so produced on behalf of prosecution during trial, the learned
lower court had acquitted appellant for an offence punishable under
Section 376 of the IPC as well as Section 3(i)(x)(xi) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act at the other end convicted and sentenced for under Section
493 of the IPC.
In order to properly appreciate the evidence
inconsonance with the niceties relating to Section 493 of the IPC it
looks prudent to have a glance over Section 493 of the IPC which
reads as follows:
"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."
From perusal of the Section, it is evident that it
application is only permissible when there happens to be deceitful
action at the end of the accused by which victim is kept under illusion
of valid marriage irrespective of the fact that no valid marriage was
solemnized and under banner of aforesaid illusory event, the victim
submits herself in continuation of sexual relationship.
Coming to the evidence on the record, the most
important witness on this score happens to be PW.3, the victim
herself. She had deposed that occurrence is of the year 1990. She is
unable to disclose the date as well as month. She used to go to house
of Madheshwar Verma (PW.2) where accused also visited. On
account thereof, both became known to each other. Accused
requested Madheshwar Verma to act as middle man in getting
negotiation of marriage finalized in between he himself with her,
which she refused. Then Baleshwar Singh met with her mother and
also requested. Baleshwar Singh also came to her place and
threatened to commit suicide if she declines. Out of aforesaid
threatening, she began to reside with Baleshwar Singh. She remained
in his company for the last 20 years. They had cross all barrier. They
have developed, continued with physical relationship. Baleshwar took
her away to different places of his posting. When Baleshwar Singh
enticed her away she was aged about 20 years. She repeatedly
requested Baleshwar Singh to marry but he refused. He put vermilion
only to show the others that she happens to be her legally wedded
wife. He also performed some rituals on that pretext to deceive
others. He had promised that after retirement, he will construct house
for her. He had also promised that he will reside with her. He had
also promised that her name will be in the pension book. As he failed,
so this case has been filed.
During cross-examination, at para-6 she had stated
that Madheshwar Verma happens to be her co-villager. Madheshwar
Verma is instrumental in getting this case filed. She became known to
accused Baleshwar Singh at the place of Madheshwar Verma. At that
very time she was aged about 20 years. One month thereafter
Baleshwar Singh requested Madheshwar Verma to get him married.
In para-8 she had stated that she had not fled from her house rather
she accompanied Baleshwar Singh she use to regularly visit him. In
para-9 she had further stated that whatever she deposed today she had
not incorporated in the complaint petition. In para-11 she had further
stated that she will file document in support of her company with
Baleshwar Singh for the last 20 years. Then had denied the
suggestion. (Though not filed)
Therefore, from her evidence alone, it is evident that
she was never kept in dilemma or on false promise or under illusion
of getting herself married with appellant Baleshwar Singh which
could be valid one irrespective of the fact that the same was not
valid. That being so, the major ingredient for constitution an offence
punishable under Section 493 of the IPC is found lacking. So far
status of other witnesses are concerned, those are also not going to
improve the case of the prosecution.
That being so, the judgment impugned did not justify
its prevalence whereupon is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Appellant is
on bail, hence is discharged from its liability. However, it will be at
the option of the informant/complainant to take shelter under
Domestic Violence Act .