Delhi District Court
State vs . 1)Vijeta @ Varsha @ Lali on 24 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPL. FAST TRACK COURT
PATIALA HOUSE COURT/NEW DELHI
SC No.70/15
FIR No.324/13
PS Vasant Kunj (N)
U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC
State Vs. 1)Vijeta @ Varsha @ Lali
w/o Mahendra Singh @ Manish
2) Mahendra @ Manish
s/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal
both r/o H.No.101, Gali No.13, Harit Vihar
Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi
Unique ID No. 02403R0165272013
Date of Institution : 12.11.2013
Argument heard/order reserved: 16.02.2016
Date of judgment: 24.02.2016
Final Order Accused Vijeta @ Varsha acquitted.
Accused Mahendra convicted u/s 376/493/495 of IPC
JUDGMENT
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Succinctly, the facts of the case unfolded from the charge sheet filed u/s 173 Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C) are that the father of the prosecutrix had given an advertisement in news paper 'Punjab Kesari' dated 23.05.2010 inviting proposals for marriage of prosecutrix from prospective grooms who were interested in living in the house of prosecutrix's father after marriage with prosecutrix. Pursuant to that advertisement, both accused visited the house of prosecutrix after entering into a criminal conspiracy to perform marriage of prosecutrix with accused Mahendra @ Manish. Accused Vijeta @ Versha who was wife of accused Mahendra, personated herself as sister of accused Mahendra and they both assured that accused Mahendra was unmarried.
FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 1 of 32 Thereafter, on 30.08.2010, marriage of complainant/prosecutrix was performed with accused Mahendra in Arya Samaj Mandir at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Thereafter, prosecutrix and accused Mahendra started living as husband and wife and consummated the said marriage from 30.08.2010 onwards. During this period, accused Mahendra committed sexual intercourse with the complainant after concealing the factum of his earlier marriage with accused Vijeta @ Varsha and used to be absent from house off and on on the pretext of his business tour etc. Finally, he disappeared after stealing a huge sum from the house of the prosecutrix's father.
On 04.08.2011, a news was telecasted on TV News Channel regarding apprehension of accused Mahendra Singh for committing theft in the house of prosecutrix's father on 23.07.2011. After watching the said news, the prosecutrix came to know that accused Mahendra is already married with accused Vijeta @ Varsha and also having a small child. Thereafter, the prosecutrix filed the present complaint dated 16.08.2013 in PS Vasant Kunj (N) upon which present FIR was registered against the accused persons.
INVESTIGATION
2. During investigation, WSI Pooan Yadav got the prosecutrix medically examined at AIIMS hospital. Accused Vijeta @ Varsha was arrested on 17.08.2013 and in her interrogation, she told that she was married with accused Manish @ Mahendra in the year 2007 and out of the said wedlock there was a girl child aged about three years. It was further revealed that she and her husband ie co- accused Mahendra @ Manish had seen matrimonial advertisement in the news paper and they made a plan and according to plan, they went to the house of the prosecutrix at Vasant Kunj for talk of marriage of the prosecutrix with co- accused Mahendra @ Manish. It was further revealed that on 30.08.2010 co- accused Mahendra got married with the prosecutrix at Arya Samaj Mandir and both the accused had planned to demand dowry and extract money from the FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 2 of 32 family of the prosecutrix. After sometime, accused Mahendra @ Manish had stolen Rs.80 lacs from the house of the prosecutrix. But the prosecutrix came to know about all these things lateron. During further investigation, statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded on 19.08.2013 and she corroborated the statement given in her complaint.
3. During further investigation, the prosecutrix/complainant also handed over the marriage certificate of her marriage with the accused Mahendra @ Manish which was verified from Arya Samaj Mandir. During investigation, IO had also seized some property papers, birth certificate of Ishika wherein the accused Varsha @ Vijeta has been shown as mother and accused Mahendra @ Manish as father. Press release papers of FIR No.190/11, Bank Policy of ICICI, Prudential Life Insurance Policy in the name of accused Mahendra as policy holder and Vijeta as nominee being the wife of the accused Mahendra and 4 photographs were also seized to prove that both the accused were already married and they have a child namely Ishika. IO had also got verified the birth certificate of child from the concerned office.
4. The prosecutrix was counseled through NGO. However, despite best efforts, accused Mahendra could not be traced out and therefore, on 08.09.2013 NBW was obtained from the concerned court against him and thereafter process u/s 82 Cr.P.C was initiated against him. But on 25.10.2013 accused Mahendra @ Manish was arrested, he was interrogated and he disclosed that he along with co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha had planned to marry the prosecutrix after seeing the advertisement in the news paper. After marriage, he extracted huge amount from the family of the prosecutrix and on 23.07.2011 he had stolen Rs.80 lacs from the house of the prosecutrix but later on the fact was revealed to other persons. Accused Mahendra @ Manish was also medically examined and his PC remand was obtained. During PC remand, accused Mahendra got recovered FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 3 of 32 some property papers from his rented accommodation at Nangloi and those documents were also seized by the IO. During further investigation, IO also seized the marriage photographs, news paper cutting produced by the prosecutrix and also recorded statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the challan was filed before the learned M.M. Thereafter, the case was committed to learned Predecessor Court from where the case was assigned to this court vide order dated 24.08.2015.
CHARGE
6. After hearing parties, a common charge was framed by the learned Predecessor Court against both the accused on 10.12.2013. Against the accused Vijeta, charge was framed for the offence of criminal conspiracy with co-accused Mahendra @ Manish u/s 120B r/w section 376 of IPC for impersonating herself to be the sister of co-accused Mahendra and that accused Mahendra is unmarried so as to cause the prosecutrix believe that accused Mahendra was unmarried. The accused Mahendra @ Manish was charged for committing rape upon the prosecutrix by establishing physical relationship with prosecutrix after marrying the prosecutrix concealing his earlier marriage with co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha u/s 120B, 376, 493 and 495 of IPC.
7. In order to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution examined HC Naresh Kumar the then DO as PW1, W/Ct. Babita who got conducted medical examination of accused Vijeta as PW2, Smt. Sushma Nagpal the mother of prosecutrix as PW3, W/Ct. Kavita Yadav in whose presence accused Vijeta was arrested as PW4, Ct. Vipin Kumar in whose presence documents were recovered at the instance of accused Mahendra from his rented house as PW5, Dr. Monica who examined the prosecutrix as PW6, Dr. Vinod Bhivsane who examined and prepared the MLC of prosecutrix as PW7, Dr. Asit Kumar Sikary FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 4 of 32 who examined and prepared the MLC of accused Mahendra as PW8, Ct. Lokesh who accompanied the IO to arrest the accused Mahendra and also got conducted his medical examination as PW9, Ms. Jasjeet Kaur, the learned MM who recorded statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C as PW10, the prosecutrix/complainant as PW11, Sh. Ankit Nagpal brother of prosecutrix as PW12, Sh. Raman Viz the then Sub-Registrar from MCD to prove the birth certificate of child of accused persons as PW13 and IO/SI Poonam Yadav as PW14. After completion of prosecution evidence, matter was posted for statement of accused.
8. First statements and subsequently supplement statements of both accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C separately. In her statement, accused Vijeta @ Varsha admitted that a female child was born to her from accused Mahendra Singh. However, she denied rest of the allegations stating that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She also stated that she was not involved in any way regarding marriage of prosecutrix with accused Mahendra Singh nor she was present at the marriage spot.
In his statement, accused Mahendra Singh denied the material allegations that he proposed the prosecutrix to marry her concealing his earlier marriage with accused Vijeta. He also denied that he as well as co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha introduced themselves as brother and sister before the prosecutrix. However, he admitted that his marriage was solemnized with prosecutrix on 30.08.2010 and after marriage he made physical relationship with prosecutrix.
9. Final arguments heard on behalf of both the parties. I have also gone through the records as well as written submissions filed on behalf the parties. I have also gone through the relevant provisions of IPC and case laws relied upon by the complainant/State.
FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 5 of 32
10. It was submitted on behalf of the State/complainant that in the present case both accused conspired with each other and introduced themselves as brother and sister. They concealed intentionally the factum of earlier marriage between them with a view to ensure the prosecutrix to believe that accused Mahendra is unmarried. They succeeded in their design to got the prosecutrix married with accused Mahendra @ Manish on 30.08.2010. Accused Mahendra @ Manish established relationship with the prosecutrix giving her a belief that she is his legally wedded wife and he never told the prosecutrix about her earlier marriage during the period he cohabited with prosecutrix. It has been further submitted that all these facts have been proved against both of accused by ocular evidence as well as documentary evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it is prayed that both accused be held guilty for the offences for which they have been charged with. Reliance is placed upon mainly on the following judgments on behalf of State/complainant in support of claim and contentions:-
(a) Bhupinder Singh vs U.T. Chandigarh, (2008) 8 SCC 531
(b) Ranpreet Singh vs State of Punjab Crl. Appeal No.2528-SB of 2011 decided on 17 December, 2012 by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana.
(c) Sarla vs State CRL. A. 64/2006 decided on 6 February, 2014 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(d) Dinesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Rasik Bihar Joshi and Anr.
Decided on 18 December, 1998 by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhy Pradesh.
(e) Satish and another vs State of Haryana CRA-S No.138-SB of 2010 decided on 5 December, 2013 by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana.
(f) Tej Khan and anr. Vs State of MP decided on 19 May, 2003 by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
(g) Dhannulal and ors vs Ganeshram and anr. Civil Appl. no.3410 FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 6 of 32 of 2007 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(h) Om Prakash vs State of Haryana Crl. Appl. No. 807 of 2010 decided on 28.04.2011 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(i) Priya Patel vs State of M,.P. & Anr. JT 2006 (6) SC 303
(j) AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1007, Vikram Singh & Ors vs State of Punjab LEGAL SUBMISSION OF ACCUSED
11. The first legal submission raised on behalf of the accused Vijeta @ Varsha is that she can not be charged for the offence of conspiracy to commit the offence of rape along with co-accused Mahendra as she being a lady can not commit the offnece of rape and therefore, she can not be charged with criminal conspiracy for commission of the said offence by the co-accused Mahendra.
12. Next legal submission has been raised on behalf of both the accused that there is unexplained delay in lodging FIR. As in the present case, it is the case of the complainant/prosecutrix herself that she came to know on 04.08.2011 that both accused are husband and wife and they are also having a female child but the present complaint was made only on 16.08.2013 when both accused were released on bail in the alleged case of theft. It was further argued that complaint was filed with a view to implicate both accused falsely when they were released on bail in the FIR of theft lodged by the family of prosecutrix. It was further submitted that there is no explanation for such a long delay in lodging FIR even after gaining the knowledge of the marriage between both accused prior to marriage of prosecutrix with accused.
13. It was further submitted on behalf of accused Mahendra @ Manish that he never married the co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha and it was live-in relationship. It was further submitted alternatively on behalf of accused Mahendra @ Mahish that at FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 7 of 32 the best accused Mahendra can be charged for the offence u/s 493 and 495 of IPC for bigamy and marriage related offence as it is admitted case of the prosecutrix that she got married with the accused Mahendra @ Manish and after their marriage there is no question of committing rape by the accused Mahendra @ Manish with the prosecutrix as she is legally wedded wife and cohabited with him as a wife and not under misconception of being wife. It was further contended on behalf of the accused Mahendra that the documents relied upon by the prosecution in support of proof of the marriage of the accused Mahendra with co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha has not been proved as per law as all the documents are photo copies and no witness has been summoned to prove those documents as per law.
14. It was further submitted on behalf of the accused Mahendra that the documents relied upon by the prosecution does not show the name of accused as Mahendra but these documents are in the name of Manish Sharma and there is no evidence that Mahendra and Manish are one and same person. It was submitted on behalf of both the accused that they have been falsely implicated in the present matter. Accused Vijeta had never visited to the house of prosecutrix nor had attended the marriage ceremony solemnized between co- accused Mahendra and prosecutrix.
Findings Regarding Legal Submissions
15. The legal submission that accused Mahendra can not be charged for the offence punishable u/s 493/495 as well as 376 of IPC, is misconceived in as much as in the catena of judgments where the accused has contracted second marriage concealing the factum of earlier marriage, he can be charged for the offence punishable u/s 493 and 495 along with section 376 of IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the issue of second marriage during the life time of the spouse by the accused, categorically held in para 12 and 16 in case titled as Bhupender Singh vs. UT of Chandigarh (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 8 of 32 531, as under:-
12.The High Court found that the case at hand was covered by clause "Fourthly" of section 375 IPC and, therefore, was guilty of the offence and was liable for punishment u/s 376 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction, as done, was upheld. But taking into account the fact that the complainant had knowledge about his marriage, and had yet surrendered to him for sexual intercourse, held this to be a fit case for reduction of sentence and award of adequate compensation.
Accordingly, custodial sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment was imposed in place of seven years' rigorous imprisonment as was done by the trial court. The compensation was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- which was directed to be paid within three months. It was indicated that in case the compensation amount was not paid, the reduction in sentence would not be given effect to.
16.Though it is urged with some amount of vehemence that when the complainant knew that he was a married man, clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 IPC has no application, the stand is clearly without substance. Even though the complainant claimed to have married the accused, which fact is established from several documents, that does not improve the situation so far as the appellant-accused is concerned. Since he was already married, the subsequent marriage, if any, has no sanctity in law and is void ab initio. In any event, the appellant-accused could not have lawfully married the complainant. A bare reading of clause "Fourthly" of FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 9 of 32 section 375 IPC makes this position clear.
16. Further, while discussing the issue on framing of charge for bigamy as well as for the offence of rape upon the single/identical allegation u/s 376, 493, 494 and 495, the Hon'ble Punjab High Court in case titled as Ranpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab, Cril. Appeal No.2528-SB of 2011 vide order dated 17.12.2012, has held as under:-
The appellant has advanced an argument that he did not marry the prosecutrix and never had any relationship with her. But in the opinion of this Court, in view of the categoric assertion of PW1 Amandeep Kaur supported by the testimony of her mother PW4 Surjit Kaur, duly corroborated by PW11 Joginder Singh photographer, who has proved the photographs Ex. P1 to P15, taken by him at the time of the marriage and their negatives, which depict the complainant in wedding attire beside the appellant, prove beyond any iota of doubt that the appellant had contracted marriage with the complainant according to Sikh rites and ceremonies which fulfilled the requirements of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant could not assail the veracity of these photographs and could not impute any ill motive on the part of the photographer Joginder Singh who had taken those photographs. Lot many people were present in the photographs at the time of alleged marriage. After perusing the photographs, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court as regards the marriage of the parties, who have solemnized the marriage according to the sikh rites and ceremonies. Even if for the sake of argument, as has been propounded by learned counsel for the appellant, it is FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 10 of 32 presumed that there is no valid marriage between the parties and hence offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out and the offiece, if any, will be made out under Section 494, IPC ie, bigamy, is concerned, and given some credence, even then the appellant cannot escape his liability for the offence under Section 376 IPC inasmuch, as the ingredients of Section 375 Fourthly IPC and Section 493 IPC are akin to each other. Section 376 fourthly IPC fastens the liability for the offence of rape upon the accused if he knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Similarly, the essential ingredients of Section 493 IPC are that the accused caused the woman in question to believe that she was lawfully married to him and that the accused induced that woman to cohabit with him under that belief. Another, additional ingredient of Section 493 is that he caused that belief in that woman by deceit. Therefore, in these circumstances, even if the appellant denies to be the husband of the complainant, still he is liable under Clause Fourthly of Section 375 IPC as well as under
Section 493 IPC because the consent given by the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with her was only under the belief that he was her husband whereas, under the provisions of law it being a second marriage of the appellant with the prosecutrix, was void ab initio. But the prosecutrix consented to have sexual intercourse with the appellant under misconception of fact that she was legally wedded wife of the appellant. Therefore, the argument of the FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 11 of 32 appellant that the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out as there was no valid marriage between the parties, is misconceived and untenable. The fact that the appellant perpetrated deceit upon the prosecutrix in order to make her cohabit with him is writ large from the document Ex.D1 produced by him in his defence based upon which he took plea that the prosecutrix knew about his marital status, which essentially means that there was deceitful intention in his mind since inception. The element of 'consent' pales into obscurity in the peculiar circumstances of the case wherein the prosecutrix had no occasion or reason to exercise consent when she was under the belief that she was the legally wedded wife of the appellant".
17. Further, the issue of framing of charge for bigamy and for the offence of rape has been discussed by our own Hon'ble High Court and it has been held in case titled as Chanchal vs. State & Anr, in Crl. Rev. P. No. 366/2008 vide order dated 05.01. 2012 in para no.6 to 8 as under:-
6. I have heard counsels for the parties. It may be noted at this stage that Respondent no.2 has not disputed the fact that there were sexual relations between him and the Petitioner. The said sexual relations are supported by the medical certificate dated 2nd May, 2007 confirming the abortion and the medical examination which was conducted on 18th June, 2007. the allegations of rape in this case are twofold. The first allegation which is covered under the second description prescribed in Section 375 r/w 90 IPC arises when the Respondent no.2 obtained the consent of the Petitioner for sexual relations in lieu of marriage till 9th May, 2007 and the FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 12 of 32 second allegation which is covered under the fourth description prescribed in Section 375 IPC wherein the Petitioner had sexual relations with the Respondent no.2 after 16th May, 2007 thinking him to be her lawfully wedded husband.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent no.2 has relied upon Pradeep (supra). In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme court had remitted the case back to the High Court to deal with the matter more elaborately. Their Lordships observed that in a case where the accused had no intention to marry the prosecutrix from very inception an offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. Even in the present case, from the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, prima facie it is apparent that Respondent no.2 had no intention to marry the Petitioner and married the Petitioner only after marrying someone else.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 argues that since he actually married the Petitioner, it cannot be said that he did not intend to marry her, to constitute misconception of facts. Since the Respondent No.2 had married one Nirmala before marrying the Petitioner, the marriage of the Petitioner and Respondent no.2 was not lawful. The fourth explanation to Section 375 IPC contemplates a situation where the consent of the woman is taken on her believing to be lawfully married.
18. Similar finding was given by our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Divya Oram Kujur vs State & Anr, Crl. Rev. P. No.193/2012 vide order dated FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 13 of 32 27.02.2013, that if the marriage is void ab initio since inception, the charge must be framed u/s 375. Thus, submission on behalf of accused Mahendra @ Manish that he can not be charged and convicted for offence of rape being without merits, stands rejected.
19. Second submission on behalf of the accused Vijeta @ Varsha that she can not be charged for criminal conspiracy along with accused Mahendra @ Manish for commission of rape by the accused Mahendra with prosecutrix, is also without any merit. The submission itself is against the settled principles of law. In the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sarla vs State CRL.A.64/2006 decided on 06.02.2014, it has been held as under:-
"It was argued in that case that the appellant has been rightly acquitted of the charge under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC as a woman could not have been convicted under this Section and for which he seeks support from the judgment of the Apex Court reported as (2006) 6 SCC 263 Priya Patel vs State of M,.P. & Another and submitted that offence of rape can only be committed by man and not by a woman. The trial court has acquitted the appellant under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC and has followed the correct legal position but the conviction of the appellant u/s 376 r/w section 120B of IPC is clearly an illegality as the offence under Section 120B of IPC is substantive offence and no separate charge having been framed against the appellant for the aforenoted offence, the question of her conviction under the said provision of law without a formal charge can not be sustained.
However, after analysing the facts of the case, the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held that though the appellant was a lady but was rightly convicted for the offence FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 14 of 32 u/s 120B of IPC as she had the intention and knowledge that prosecutrix is going to be compelled for illicit intercourse with her husband Dhan Bahadur.
While rejecting the contention that in absence of formal charge u/s 120B of IPC, appellant can not be convicted, the Hon'ble High Court has further noted down that in the evidence of PW3, it is earlier stated that at the time when the prosecutrix was sleeping on the floor; her (appellant) husband gagged her mouth and committed rape upon her. The appellant was lying close and the prosecutrix/PW3 had shouted for help but the appellant in complicity with her husband has remained quiet. On her attempt to flee, the prosecutrix was restrained and withheld by the appellant by bolting the door from inside. At this time, co-accused Dhan Bahadur had committed rape upon her for the second time. These facts as have emerged in the case show that the appellant was fully aware that she was accomplice with her husband in this act which has been committed by the accused Dhan Bahadur upon the victim. Thus, in this scenario, it can not be said that the appellant was not aware of the charge that she was facing or any failure of justice has been occasioned as she was not able to answer the charge of conspiracy.
After discussing the evidence, the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellant who was also a lady in that case u/s 376 of IPC read with section 120B of IPC.
20. In the present matter, the accused Vijeta @ Varsha has been charged for the FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 15 of 32 offence u/s 120B r/w section 376 of IPC only. Thus, the submission raised on behalf of the accused that she can not be charged for criminal conspiracy for the commission of offence of rape does not hold much water and merits rejection outrightly as the offence of criminal conspiracy is a separate and distinct offence.
21. Third submission that the documents relied upon by the prosecution related to property, birth certificate of the daughter of the accused and documents related to bank, LIC etc are not proved as per law, is also without any merit. So far as birth certificate and sale deed dated 24.07.2008 in favour of accused Vijeta are concerned, firstly, the witness PW13 Sh. Raman Viz from the office of Sub-Registrar was examined by the prosecution who has categorically proved the birth certificate Ex. PW13/B wherein the accused Vijeta has been shown as mother and accused Manish has been shown as father of the child. Furthermore, no objection was raised at the time of exhibiting of certified copy of sale deed Ex.PW14/D dated 24.07.2008. It is the cardinal principle of law that in case no objection regarding the mode of proof of document is taken at first available opportunity, its admissibility can not be challenged afterwards if document is admissible in evidence otherwise. In this regard, the law is well settled. In the judgment reported in (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 752 titled as R.V.E Venkatachala Gounder vs Atulmigu Viswesarswami & V.P. Temple and Another." it has been held as under :-
Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 16 of 32 towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as "an exhibit", an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular can not be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. ON the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for tow reasons: firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of poof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 17 of 32 to herein above, in the latter case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior court".
ROLE OF ACCUSED VIJETA
22. In the present case, accused Vijeta @ Varsha has been charged u/s 120B r/w section 376 of IPC. It is settled proposition of law that for the offence u/s 120B of IPC ie for the purpose of conspiracy, there can be no direct evidence on record. Criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120A of IPC which is being reproduced for ready reference:-
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy. - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, -
(1) an illegal act, or (2)an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation. - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
23. Thus, to prove the charge u/s 120B of IPC for commission of offence of criminal conspiracy, it is necessary to prove on record that there was an agreement to do an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. The prosecution is not required to prove that perpetrators agreed to do or cause to be done the FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 18 of 32 illegal act. Even the evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. The essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. Mere proof of such agreement is sufficient to establish criminal conspiracy. In such case the circumstances, when taken together on their face value, should indicate meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, committed by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. Circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in point of time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
24. In the light of the aforesaid established principle of law, now it is to be seen what was the role of the accused Vijeta @ Varsha in commission of offence. To prove the charge against the accused Vijeta @ Varsha, the prosecution has examined mainly the prosecutrix as PW11, her mother Sushma Nagpal as PW3 and her brother Ankit Nagpal as PW12. The testimony of the prosecutrix and her family members are of vital importance to establish on record as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Vijeta @ Varsh.
25. In her examination in chief, PW3 has stated that accused Mahendra proposed to marry with witness PW11 stating that he is unmarried. PW3 further deposed that both accused introduced themselves as brother and sister when they came together at her house for the first time. PW3 further deposed that accused Vijeta @ Varsha told that she was already married to some other person and both FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 19 of 32 accused remained in her house for about 1 and ½ hours and since her husband was not present, accused were told that she will convey about the marriage proposal after discussion.
26. In her cross examination on behalf of accused Vijeta @ Varsha. PW3 has testified that she did not remember the date of visit of both accused but it was month of August during evening time. She further testified that while considering the proposal of the accused Mahendra @ Manish for marriage with her daughter/PW11, she along with her family members decided to make inquiry about the proposal given by the accused. Since they were not having knowledge of residential address of the accused, they asked from accused Mahendra @ Manish to give his residential address and he had given some Rohini address and house number which she does not remember. She further testified that she and her husband went to Rohini to locate the address and when they reached at the given address after a big efforts, they found the accused Mahendra @ Manish present there. She further testified that the said house was on rent basis as disclosed by the accused and she did not find any other person in the house other than accused Mahendra, though, she made inquiry from him about the accused Vijeta @ Varsha but during this period she could not find her in the house. PW3 further deposed that on further inquiry, accused told that his parents are no more and he is alone along with his sister. She further testified in her cross examination that at the time of marriage, all relatives from her side were present in Arya Samaj Mandir and from the side of accused 4-5 persons had come and the accused Mahendra had revealed that the old lady with him is his bua and regarding other person he stated that these are persons from the side of sister's in-law. She further testified that she had met the accused Vijeta @ Varsha once she came to her house and thereafter she was only talking to her on telephone, however, she admitted that at the time of marriage, accused Vijeta @ Varsha was not present. She further testified that FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 20 of 32 when the accused was arrested in theft case, then she came to know that accused Mahendra @ Manish is married to accused Vijeta @ Varsha and she is not his sister though she had no proof regarding the marriage of accused Mahendra @ Manish with accused Vijeta @ Varsha. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused Mahendra @ Manish, PW3 testified that they did not lodge any complaint against the accused Mahendra @ Manish during 30.08.2010 to 16.08.2013. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence available on record that accused Vijeta @ Varsha used to talk on telephone with witness PW3.
27. The prosecutrix/PW11 in her examination in chief, deposed that both accused came to her house; they introduced themselves as brother and sister and accused Vijeta @ Varsha told her that accused Mahendra @ Manish is unmarried. In her cross examination, PW11 testified that she does not remember the date when both accused came to her house in August, 2010; they had come only once at her house in presence of her mother in the evening time. She further testified that she does not remember the exact time but accused Mahendra @ Manish came to her house along with accused Vijeta @ Varsha and at that time they talked with each other. She further testified that at that time she also talked to accused Vijeta and on her inquiry from her as to who she was, accused Vijeta @ Varsha replied that she was the maternal cousin sister of accused Mahendra @ Manish. She further testifed that when she asked accused Vijeta about her husband, parents, residence and children, she told that she was married and residing at Chandigarh; accused Vijeta further told that she did not have any children and disclosed the name of her husband as one Bajaj. PW11 further testified that she does not remember the exact name disclosed by the accused Vijeta to her but she did not disclose this fact to IO as she did not ask her the same or that she does not remember whether IO had asked the same or not. PW11 admitted in her cross examination that these FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 21 of 32 details are not mentioned in her complaint Ex.PW11/A. She further testified that she does not know whether her parents had done a background check in respect of both accused persons at their level. She further testified that accused Mahendra @ Manish had met her father and her brother at a mutually agreed public place in Sarojini Nagar Market before her marriage.
28. However, in her later part of the cross examination, PW11 testified that accused Mahendra called her mother 4-5 times inquiring about the decision regarding the marriage and her mother informed him that she wanted to see his house; thereafter her parents went to see the house of the accused Mahendra and after being satisfied, her family communicated their acceptance of marriage. She further testified that her father had accompanied her mother to the house of the accused Mahendra @ Manish and they visited his house in August, 2010 but she did not remember the date. She further testified that her parents had told her that they found the accused Mahendra @ Manish alone in his house and she admitted that at that time her parents were satisfied that she can be married with accused Mahendra @ Varsha. She further testified that accused Vijeta @ Varsha did not attend the marriage ceremony; her father did not invite any member of the accused Mahendra @ Manish as Mahendra told her parents that he was orphan. She further testified that some relatives of the accused Mahendra were present in the marriage and she has no such photographers in which accused Vijeta is seen along with her and her parents.
29. Witness PW12, in his examination in chief, has deposed that both accused persons have introduced themselves as brother and sister and they had told that accused Mahendra was unmarried but at that time he was not present in the house. Thus, it is clear that whatever PW12 has deposed before the court, is a hearsay evidence.
FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 22 of 32
30. In the police complaint Ex.PW11/A, it is stated that by the prosecutrix that accused Mahendra @ Manish got married with the prosecutrix after introducing his wife (ie co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha) as his sister and she came to know from TV News Channel later on that both accused are husband and wife and are having one female child. In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex.PW10/B, she made similar allegation against the co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha. Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is to be seen as to whether co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha hatched any conspiracy with the accused Mahendra @ Manish to commit the criminal act.
31. From the evidence available on record, it is clear that as per the allegation of the prosecutrix, accused Vijeta @ Varsha had visited the house of the prosecutrix only once. However, it is not clear on which date she visited the house of the prosecutrix, though, it has been stated that she visited the house of the prosecutrix in the month of August, 2010. But, none of the witnesses has been able to prove it on record what was exact date and time of her visit along with accused Mahendra @ Manish. Furthermore, witness PW3 had stated that it is the accused Mahendra @ Manish who told that he is unmarried; prosecutrix has told that accused Vijeta told that accused Mahendra is unmarried. PW12 had gone one step ahead and he stated that both the accused told that accused Mahendra was unmarried though, he himself was not present at the time of visit by the accused persons to the house of the prosecutrix. Except bald statement, there is no other evidence available on record which can establish that accused Vijeta @ Varsha had visited the house of the prosecutrix in the month of August, 2010 and on the point of introducing the accused Mahendra @ Manish as unmarried, their testimonies contradict to each other. In her cross examination, PW3 has stated that when they visited the house of the accused Mahendra where co-accused Vijeta was not found present. It is uncommon in our society that at the time of marriage, the sister is not invited to attend the marriage or no FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 23 of 32 inquiry will be made about her absence at the time of marriage when she was the lady who is alleged to have come to the house of prosecutrix with accused Mahendra @ Manish for the first time with the proposal of the marriage. Particularly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, it appears to be unbelievable that if the accused Vijeta visited the house of prosecutrix and she being the sole relative of accused Mahendra, her absence at the time of marriage had gone unnoticed or she was not invited by parents of prosecutrix.
32. In the present case, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that co-accused Vijeta did not attend the marriage ceremony of the accused Mahendra. Even the prosecutrix in her testimony, has taken two different stands about the background check of the accused Mahendra. At first instance, prosecutrix deposed that she did not know whether her parents had done background check of the accused Mahendra and subsequentlyl she deposed that her mother along with her father went to the house of the accused and after coming back, she was told that accused Mahendra @ Manish was found alone at the rented accommodation at Rohini, New Delhi. Thus, after being satisfied, which is ordinarily done in our society, the parents of prosecutrix gave their consent for marriage of prosecutrix.
33. As per the prosecution case, accused Mahendra @ Manish had stated to the famiily of prosecutrix that his parents are no more. In such circumstances, it becomes doubtful that as to why the sister ie co-accused Vijeta was not invited to attend the marriage ceremony. It is highly unbelievable in the facts and circumstances of the present case that prosecutrix or her family ever met to accused Vijeta @ Varsha as she was the only relative who met with the family of the prosecutrix before marriage at the time of marriage proposal of the accused Mahendra with prosecutrix but she was never invited by the family of the prosecutrix nor any inquiry was made about her at the time of marriage FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 24 of 32 ceremony.
34. Even for the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that co-accused Vijeta visited the house of prosecutrix, but from the evidence available on record in the testimony of PW3, PW11 and PW12, it is highly doubtful that accused Vijeta introduced the accused Mahendra as unmarried person so as to hatch a conspiracy to solemnize the second marriage of the accused Mahendra @ Manish with the prosecutrix concealing her previous marriage with the accused. Further when the other relative of the accused attended the marriage ceremony of the prosecutrix with accused Mahendra @ Manish including his maternal bua but there is no explanation as to why no inquiry was made after the first visit of the accused Vijeta about her absence at the time of marriage ceremony or at any other occasion. In these circumstances, it becomes relevant to note here that in the present case, the complaint was made only on 16.08.2013 though the prosecutrix and her family came to know the factum of earlier marriage of the accused Mahendra with co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha on 04/05.08.2011 when the news was flashed in media and thus lodging of delayed complaint at least against accused accused Vijeta @ Varsha becomes relevant and there is no explanation put forward by prosecution for such a delayed complaint and therefore, the possibility of false implication of the accused Vijeta @ Varsha cannot be ruled out as an afterthought when she was arrested as co-accused in another FIR No.190/11 wherein there is allegation of theft against her and co- accused Mahendra @ Manish of an amount of Rs.80 lacs.
35. It is relevant to mention at this stage that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as held by he Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2000 II AD(S.C.) 103;
"That the time tested rule is that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person.
FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 25 of 32 Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction can not be passed on the accused. A criminal Court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, life long liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits."
36. In view of the number of contradictions in the testimony of prosecutrix/PW11, her mother/PW3 and her brother/PW12 regarding hatching criminal conspiracy by the accused Vijeta @ Varsha in connivance with co-accused Mahendra @ Manish and other incidental aspects, the testimony of PW2, PW3 and PW12 makes the prosecution story doubtful qua the role of co-accused Vijeta qua criminal conspiracy and it does not inspire any confidence. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussed facts and circumstances, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Vijeta beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, she is acquitted of charge leveled against her. She is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- in terms of section 437A of Cr.P.C.
ROLE OF ACCUSED Mahendra
37. Accused Mahendra has been charged for the offences punishable u/s 376, 493 and 495 of IPC read with section 120B of IPC. Relevant provision of section 375, 493 and 495 of IPC is reproduced for ready reference:-
Section 375 IPC defines rape with a woman against her will. Relevant provision of section 375 IPC are reproduced for ready reference as under:-
375. Rape. - A man is said to commit "rape" if he -
....
....
....
.....
FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 26 of 32 under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:-
First. - Against her will.
Secondly. - Without her consent.
Thirdly. - With her consent, when her consent has
been obtained by putting her or any person in
whom she is interested,in fear of death or of
hurt.
Fourthly. - With her consent, when the man knows that
he is not her husband and that her consent is
given because she believes that he is
another man to whom she is or believes
herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly. - With her consent when, at the time of giving
such consent, by reason of unsoundness of
mind or intoxication or the administration by
him personally or through another of any
stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is
unable to understand the nature and
consequences of that to which she gives
consent.
Sixthly. - With or without her consent, when she is
under eighteen years of age.
FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 27 of 32
Seventhly. - When she is unable to communicate consent.
Explanation 1. - ....
Explanation 2. - Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act:
Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.
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.
495. Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted. -
Whoever commits the offence defined in the last prceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 28 of 32
38. Apart from other submissions, it was submitted on behalf of the accused Mahendra @ Manish on factual aspects that the present case is the case of matrimonial dispute as when the accused Mahendra did not agree to the terms and condition of the complainant and did not agree for divorce, then the complainant and her parents being a rich and highly influential persons started implicating accused Mahendra and Vijeta in false and fabricated case. It was further submitted that the prosecution has not proved that both the accused are husband and wife. It was submitted that both were residing in live-in relationship. The birth certificate of baby Ishika does not prove the status of both the accused persons as husband and wife and other documents are photo copies. The accused was not given opportunity to lead the defence evidence. It is a false case and even the accused was not given proper legal representation to defend his case. It was further submitted that the paramount importance of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if there is controversy, benefit of doubt always be given to the accused. On this grounds, acquittal of the accused Mahendra @ Manish is prayed for.
39. The first contention that accused was not given any opportunity to lead defence evidence is against the records. The accused was given opportunity to lead defence evidence after recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C and accused denied of availing the opportunity by saying 'no' to lead defence evidence.
40. The other submission that accused was not given proper legal representation to defend the case is also against record. The accused was represented through the counsel throughout the entire trial. As a matter of records, the counsel appearing for accused has examined all the material witnesses extensively at length. Moreover, at the fag end of trial, he requested for change of his advocate and this court provided him legal representation through Legal Aid Services. Therefore, it appears that this ground has been taken just for the sake of FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 29 of 32 defence.
41. Further submission is that the accused Mahendra @ Manish was not known as Manish and both are not one and same person. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that accused was not using his name as Manish as well. This defence has been taken after the conclusion of the trial. In the entire statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused has not taken any such defence that he is not known by the name of Manish. Throughout the trial, accused contested the case as Mahendra @ Manish and accused has failed to put any objection on record at the time of framing of charge or at the time of of statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C that he is not known by his alias name ie Manish. Furthermore, in reply to specific question no.16 in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C that he is known by the name of Mahendra and Manish and that there is a birth certificate Ex.PW13/B in which his name along with co-accused is appearing as father and mother, accused replied that it is a matter of record and thus, it stands proved on record that accused Mahendra alias Manish is one and same person. It appears that accused has taken this defence only to wriggle out from conviction as afterthought.
42. Though, in his arguments, accused has denied his marriage with co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha but the documents Ex.PW13/B ie birth certificate prove it beyond reasonable doubt that he was married to the co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha. The documents Ex.PW13/A ie hospital records also suggest that a baby girl was born from the wedlock of the accused Mahendra @ Manish and Vijeta @ Varsha. These documents Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B have been duly proved by the witness PW13. No objection was raised at the time of exhibiting of these documents. Otherwise also, they are certified copies and are admissible in evidence and therefore, the objection regarding the mode of proof can not be entertained at this stage.
FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 30 of 32
43. Further, the documents Ex.PW14/D ie Sale Deed executed in favour of the co- accused Vijeta @ Varsha dated 24.07.2008 which was recovered at the instance of accused Mahendra @ Manish further makes it clear beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Vijeta @ Varsha is the wife of the accused Mahendra @ Manish. The documents Ex.PW14/D is dated 24.07.2008 ie much prior to second marriage of the accused Mahendra @ Manish with the prosecutrix. It is the admitted case of the accused that he got married with the prosecutrix on 30.08.2010 Even the Sale Deed Ex.PW14/D is annexed with the photographer of co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha and her husband name has been shown as Mahendra which proves beyond any pale of doubt that both accused were husband and wife when accused Mahendra contracted second marriage with prosecutrix. This document also leaves no room for doubt about his identity as being husband of co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha.
44. From the defence of the accused Mahendra @ Manish, it appears that he wants to take advantage of such technicalities which can not be allowed. It is settled preposition of law that on mere technical grounds accused is not to be acquitted unless it has specific bearing or it goes to the root of the case. In the case Chittaranjan Das vs. State of West Bengal, 1963 SCR 237 - it was held:-
"that undue emphasis on mere technicalities in respect of matters which are not vital or of important significance in a criminal trial, may sometime frustrate the ends of justice. Any irregularity or even illegality during investigation should not be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution and that corroboration of evidence with mathematical nicesities can not be expected in criminal cases"
FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 31 of 32 In view of the same, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Mahendra was already married with co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha and they were not living in live-in relationship and therefore, this defence of the accused stands rejected.
45. In the light of the aforesaid discussions and facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case to the hilt against the accused Mahendra @ Manish and beyond any reasonable doubt that accused Mahendra @ Manish contracted the second marriage with prosecutrix during life time of her spouse by concealing the factum of his earlier marriage with co-accused Vijeta @ Varsha deceitfully causing the prosecutrix to believe that she is lawfully married to accused Mahendra @ Manish though her marriage was void ab initio and cohabited with her and established physical relationship with prosecutrix. Accordingly, accused Mahendra @ Manish is held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable u/s 376, 493 and 495 of IPC.
Put up for arguments on sentence on 26.02.2016.
(Devendra Kumar Sharma) ASJ/FTC/Court No.7/PHC Lockup Building/24.02.2016 Announced in open court on 24th February, 2016 (Total number of page 32) (One spare copy attached) FIR No.324/13 PS Vasant Kunj (N) U/s 376/493/495/120B of IPC State vs Versha @ Vijeta etc. 32 of 32