Ramji Lal vs The State of Haryana

Pritam Singh Pattar, J.—This is a revision petition filed by Ramji Lal son of Khuba Ram resident of village Dhani Mala Wall, district Seekar, Rajasthan, against the judgment dated 16th February, 1971 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon at Narnaul, dismissing his appeal against the judgment dated 28th February, 1970 of Shri R.P. Bajaj, Judicial Magistrate First Class Charkhi Dadri by which he convicted him u/s 420, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs. 500/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The facts of this case are that the wife of Jai Lal (P. W. 11) had died and his relatives wanted to remarry him. Chandan Singh (P. W. 1) who is the uncle of Jai Lal had a talk with Ram Parshad about his marriage. Ram Parshad introduced Ramji Lal, Moti Raman Nand Ram sons of Khuba to Chandan Singh (P. W. 1), Bakhtawar Singh (P. W. 3) and Satgurdas (P. W. 2). It is alleged that Ramji Lal agreed to marry his younger daughter aged 16 years to Jai Lal on payment of Rs. 6,000/- and out of it Rs. 1,000/- was demanded in advance which was to be returned in case the girl was not approved. This sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid to Ram Parshad who gave the same to Ramji Lal petitioner. About 15 days thereafter Bakhtawar Singh (P. W. 3) the brother of Jai Lal and Satgurdas (P. W. 2) went to village Todakee Dhani in Rajasthan and saw the daughter of Ramji Lal who was of fair colour and they approved the girl. The marriage was fined for Basant Panchmi. It is alleged that on 17th January, 1969 Ram Parshad, Moti Ram and Ramji Lal came to village Chiria with lagan and after the lagan ceremony Chandan Singh paid Rs. 2800/- to Ram Parshad who passed on the money to Ramji Lal in their presence and at that time other persons were also present there. The marriage was fixed for 22nd January, 1969. The marriage party went to the house of Ramji Lal in village Todakee-Dhani in Rajasthan and the remaining sum of Rs. 2200/- was pad by Chandan Singh in the house of Moti Ram to Ram Parshad who further passed on the same to Ramji Lal. The marriage ceremony was performed at 9.30 P.M. and thereafter the marriage party returned to the village. It is alleged that on return it was found that the girl given in marriage to Jai Lal was not the same that had been shown to Bakhtawar Singh and Satgurdas P.W. and that the girl which was given in marriage was Narbda who was an old and sick woman. The complainants, therefore, felt cheated and they met Moti Ram and Ram Parshad accused but both of them declined to do any thing in the matter.

Chandan Singh (P. W. 1) made application. Exhibit P.A. to the Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, district Mahindergarh and on its basis Ram Parkash Assistant Sub-Inspector (P. W. 10) registered the first information report, Exhibit P A/1. After completion of the investigation Ram Parshad, Ramji Lal, Moti Ram and Nand Ram accused were challaned u/s 420, Indian Penal Code. The trial Magistrate acquitted Ram Parshad accused but convicted the other three accused namely Ramji Lal and his two brothers Moti Ram and Nand Ram u/s 40, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Against this judgment these three accused preferred appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, which was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon at Narnaul on 16th February, 1971. The Additional Sessions Judge accepted the appeal of Moti Ram and Nand Ram and acquitted them but the appeal of Ramji Lal was dismissed. Ramji Lal has tiled this revision petition to the High Court.

Dr. Ram Gopal (P. W. 9) who was posted as Senior Medical Officer Dadri, examined Mst. Narbda on 8th April, 1969, regarding her age. In his opinion she was above 22 years of age and Exhibit P.B/1, is his report to that effect. He did not perform any ossification test for determining the age of the girl, who was alleged to have been married by Ramji Lal accused with Jai Lal. Chundan Singh (P.W. 1) who is the uncle of Jai Lal (P.W. 11) reiterated on oath the aforesaid prosecution story including payment of Rs. 6,000/- to Ramji Lal petitioner on three different occasions. Similar are the statements of Satgurdas (P.W. 2). Bakhtawar Singh (P. W. 3), the brother of Jai Lal Sis Ram (P. W. 5) and Jai Lal (P. W. 11) Bhagwana barbar (P W. 4), Pahla (P.W. 7) and Murari Lal (P. W. 8), who were members of the marriage party proved the factum of the marriage of Jai Lal with a girl at the house of Ramji Lal accused and the payment of Rs. 2200/- by Chandan Singh (P. W. 1) to Ram Parshad who paid the same to Moti Ram since acquitted. Morari Lal (P. W. 8) was alleged to have acted as a prohit at the time of the Marriage. It was stated by these witnesses that when the marriage party returned to the house of the bridegroom, it was found on the next day that the girl sent with them was not the girl who was promised to be married with Jai Lal and on their enquiry the girl told them that her name was Narbda and she was a resident of village Akohla as stated by Chandan Singh (P. W. 1). He deposed that Narbda had stayed at their house for about 15 days. Similar is the statement of Satgur Das (P. W. 2). Assistant Sub-Inspector Ram Parkash (P. W. 10) stated that the woman, Narbda was produced in the Police Station by Chandan Singh on 15th March, 1969. The marriage took place on 21st January, 1969 and according to Chandan Singh (P. W. 1) and Satgur Dass P. W. Narbada remained at the house of Jai Lal for 15 days, that is till about 6th February, 1969. There is no proof on the file to show that where this Narbda remained from 7th February, 1 69 to 15th March, 1969 when she was produced before the Police at the Police Station.

After the detection of the alleged substitution of the girl given in marriage Chandan Singh, Bakhtawar Singh and Satgur Dass contacted Ram Parshad and Moti Ram accused since acquitted and asked them as to why they had given them an old woman as bride after having taken Rs. 6,000/-, but they did not listen to them. The application Exhibit P.A. was made by Chandan Singh to the police, on 7th February, 1969. Thereafter this case was registered. There is no cogent evidence on the file to show that which girl was promised by Ramji Lal to be married with Jai Lal (P. W. 11), who is aged 28 years. Chandan Singh (P.W. 1) and others did not state that at the time when Ramji Lal agreed to marry his daughter with Jai Lal on receipt of Rs. 6,000/-, the name description etc. of the girl were told to them. The statements of the other witnesses are silent on this point.

Satgur Dass (P. W. 2) and Bakhtawar Singh (P. W. 3) about 15-16 days after the alleged agreement went to village Todakee-Dhani to see the girl and there they were shown a girl who was the daughter of Ramji Lal and she was aged about 15-16 years and was of fair colour and her height was 5''--2'' and they approved the girl. Bakhtawar Singh (P.W. 3) was not a member of the marriage party and he remained at his house. It was admitted by Satgur Dass (P. W. 2) in cross-examination that he did not know whether at the time of the marriage ceremony it was the same girl which they had seen who was married because it was dark and she was in purdah. However, he staled to the police that the marriage ceremony took place with Kamla, the girl they had see, and they had verified it. Thus he has made altogether a different statement in the Court stating that he did not know whether the marriage ceremony took place with Narbda or with the girl of Ramji Lal whose name was Kamla. He further admitted in cross-examination that Narbda was also of the same height as that of the girl shown to them, hut Narbda was weaker in health as compared to Kamla. None of the witnesses suspected any foul play in the way.

In his statement made u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code, Ramji Lal accused denied the allegations made against him in the prosecution story. From the statements of the prosecution witnesses it is established that Ramji Lal had agreed to give his girl to Jai Lal in marriage on payment of Rs. 6,000. The payment of the money made on different occasions as stated in the prosecution story is also proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no reliable and legal evidence to prove the allegations of the petitioner that Ramji Lal had a girl named Kamla and he agreed to give her in marriage and that assuming that the facts alleged by the prosecution were established even then no offence was committed by Ramji Lal u/s 420, Indian Penal Code because it was a case of a sate of a girl and the contract was not enforcible in Civil Court being against public policy in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act. Section 23 of the Indian contract Act (IX of 1872) says that every agreement of which object or consideration is unlawful is void. The consideration of an object or an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by loW or is of such a nature that, if permitted it would defeat the provisions of any law or is fraudulent or the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy.

In the instant case the agreement between the parties was that Ramji Lal would give his daughter in marriage to Jai Lal (P.W. 11) in consideration of Rs. 6,000 to him. In other words it was an agreement to sell a girl for Rs. 6,000/-. An agreement to sell a girl for money is opposed to public policy and therefore the consideration of this agreement with the accused was unlawful and the agreement of marriage was void and was not enforcible in a Court of law. If Ramji Lal had refused to marry the girl with Jai Lal even then this agreement could not be enforced in a Court of law and in that situation he cannot be said to have committed any offence. In this connection reference may be made to illustration (k)of Section 23, of Indian Contract Act, which reads as follows :--

A agrees to let her daughter to hire to B for concubinage. The agreement is void, because it is immoral though the letting may not be punishable under the Indian Penal Code.

In a Division Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in A. Suryanarayan Murthy Vs. P. Krishna Murty and Another, it was observed that a contract for receiving pecuniary gain either by the father of the groom or the bride in consideration of giving his son or daughter in marriage has been condemned as opposed to public policy and repugnant to morals. Thus the agreement alleged to have been arrived at between the complainant and the accused for marrying the daughter of the accused with Jai Lal (P.W. 11) in consideration of Rs. (sic) was hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act as being immoral and opposed to public policy and as such it was not enforcible in Court.

In a Division Bench Decision of Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Jani Hira (1912) 13 Cri. L.J.R. 521, the accused agreed to let her daughter on hire to B for concubinage for a period of one year in consideration of B paying her Rs. 70 B paid A Rs. 35 in advance. Subsequently, A refused to deliver her daughter to B or to return the sum of Rs. 35 advanced by him. On these facts, A was convicted of cheating by the trial Court. It was held that the conviction should be set side, as a party should not be allowed to prosecute on a charge of cheating when he would not be entitled to obtain from a Civil Court any relief for breach of the contract.

In another Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Jamadar Rai and Others Vs. Emperor, , the facts were A arranged the marriage of his brother with, the daughter of the accused B, the transaction being more or less a sale of the young girl. Some, earnest, money was paid at are of the ceremonies connected with the marriage, was performed later on A went to B''s village to Save the marriage performed but found the girl being married to another person and was told, that his brother was to be married to a daughter of D and the earnest money was not repaid. B was tried u/s 420. It was held as under :--

That the criminal offence u/s 420 had not been disclosed There was nothing more in the circumstance of the case than a breach of contract that is refusal to marry the girl to A''s brother giving cause of action in a civil Court

The observations made in these authorities apply to this case. In the instant case the consideration for the agreement between the accused and the complainants was, opposed to public policy and there-fore the agreement was void and the complainants were not entitled to obtain any relief for breach of this agreement from a Civil Court. Consequently no offence u/s 420, Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused in view of the law laid down; in the aforesaid-authorities As a result the revision petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence of Ramji Lal are set aside and he is acquitted.