IN THE COURT OF SHRI HARISH DUDANI

ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT

SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLSTOI-OOII 182016
SC No. : 57/16 Case No. 7614/16
FIR No.: 598/15
UVs. : 376/406/493/377/328/506/34 IPC
PS : Saket
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ...Complainant
Versus
Manoj Bhandari
Sh. Devel Singh
R/o F-12, Inner Circle
Connaught Place
New Delhi. ...Accused
Date of Institution : 18.05.2016
Date of reserving judgment : 23.05.2019 Date of pronouncement :
27.05.2019
.JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that SI Amit Solanki
received complaint dated 30.04.2015 of the prosecutrix against
accused Manoj Bhandari and eleven other persons, who were
relatives and friends of accused Manoj Bhandari, in the
police station Saket with the allegations of mental harassment,
beating, abuse, marriage with her despite being married, rape,
physical harassment and after man-iage with her, fleeing away
with his first wife with jewellery worth Rs. Five lakhs and giving
threat to kill her after abduction. In the said complaint, the
prosecutrix stated that she had filed a written complaint dated
15.04.2015 against accused Manoj Bhandari in police station Saket
after which accused was threatening to abduct and kill her and
her family members on her mobile number xxxxxxx455
on Whatsapp after showing her a revolver and that is why she was
filing the written complaint. She further stated in her complaint
that accused Manoj Bhandari told her that he was unmarried and
he wanted to marry her and on the false promise of
marriage started having physical relations with her despite her not
wanting the same and to gain her confidence, he promised to
meet her parents and on 15.022014 in the presence of his brother
and bhabhi in a temple in Noida he solemnised a fraudulent
marriage with her to avoid taking up of any legal action against
him by the prosecutrix. She trusted him as he had married her and
both of them kept living in their respective houses. The financial
condition of accused Manoj Bhandari was very bad and she always
helped him and in this manner many months passed. In September
2014 Manoj Bhandari made her

leave her job and asked her for how long they will stay like
this and asked her to leave her house saying that after 2- 4 months
their families would also agree.
2. The prosecutrix further stated in her complaint that on
04.10.2014 she left her house and accused took a flat on rent in
Mayur Vihar. After 10 days her family members came to know that
she was living with accused Manoj Bhandari and they met him and
told him that if he wanted to live with prosecutrix, he should bring
his family members and get man-ied to her according to rites and
ceremonies. Manoj Bhandari did not tell her all this. On
5 th November she returned home and accused alongwith his
relatives came to her parent's house and fixed marriage with her.
All his relatives concealed the fact that he was already married
and accused introduced his wife Laxmi as his elder bhabhi and he
also introduced his father-in-law and sister-in-law to her family
and his brother-in-law, mama, jija and sister were also there.
Although her parents did not like Manoj Bhandari however, for the
sake of her happiness they agreed for the marriage.
3. The prosecutrix further stated in her complaint that her
marriage with accused Manoj was fixed for 15.11.2014 and on the
said
day, at about 2:50 p.m. Manoj called her on phone to meet
for for five minutes in Select City Walk Mall as he had bought
something for her which she could select. She believed him and
went with his friend to the Mall, from where accused Manoj asked
her to accompany him to Saket Court and when she asked him that
he had called her to the Mall and today was their marriage and
what would they do in the court, he fell at her feet and started
asking for her forgiveness saying that he had called her to the
court because he was already married and had two children. She
was shocked to hear this and started crying. People had collected
there so accused took her inside and told her that the same day he
was filing divorce case against his wife Laxmi in Saket court and
he left saying that he would just come back. In the court, she got
puzzled, she did not know what to do and was feeling numb. In
her house, marriage preparations were already done, guests had
arrived to leave for banquet hall at 5 PM, her parents were
already against the marriage and everything went bad. In Saket
Court the father-in-law, wife, children, brother-in-law and brother
of accused Manoj met her and father-in-law of accused took her to
one chamber where there was one lawyer namely Rubina Yasmeen
who made her sign on the affidavit, however, she did not know
what was written on the affidavit and she kept signing like a
machine and
she was told that her signatures were being taken for the sake of
protection so that Lakshmi, wife of accused Manoj' could not take
any legal action against them and thereafter, she was asked to
leave.
4. The prosecutrix further stated in the complaint that
after spending about two hours in Saket Court when Dheeraj,
the friend of accused Manoj was leaving her home she asked him
when he knew everything then why he concealed
about Manoj being already married on which Dheeraj told her that
he could not do so because of his friendship. She was scared and
did not have the courage to tell anything to her family members
and she trusted the accused and compromised with the situation.
5. The prosecutrix further stated that on 15.11.2014 she got
married to accused Manoj Bhandari and after marriage they went
to Mayur Vihar and one day after her marriage she came back to
her parent's house and after the Satyanarayan Katha she went
back to Mayur Vihar and since then accused Manoj started
emotionally torturing her. Laxmi the wife of Manoj, her sister and
brother and brother-in-law started abusing and beating
her everyday and also snatched her money and when she
complained to Manoj he told her he could not do anything and

could not say anything to them. She was defamed by them

because of which they had to leave house in Mayur Vihar on
17.012015 and they started living in Pushp Vihar where her
parent's house was also there. There also Laxmi and the other
above-mentioned persons came every two-three days and fought
with her and also insulted her parents. Whenever she tried to
complain against them, accused Manoj used to prevent her from
doing so by saying that he would give divorce to Laxmi. She did
not know what to do. Laxmi, Manju and all other persons named
above started defaming her that she had snatched Laxmi's husband
and her relatives did not believe her and accused. Manoj also
started avoiding her and she understood that Manoj had cheated
her and fraudulently got married to her so that she would not take
any legal action against them and the police would think that this
was a family matter. Now Manoj used to come to her for 2 to 3
hours only and thereafter returned to his first wife Laxmi
in Trilokpuri assuring her that he was taking legal action against
Laxmi and had to go to the lawyer because of which he could not
give her time and she used to believe him.
6. The prosecutrix further stated in her complaint that
accused
Manoj was giving no money for her expenses and when she

used to ask for money, his mother used to tell her on phone from
the village that she should work and should herself take care of
her expenses as Manoj had to bear the expenses of Laxmi and two
children and he was also spending a lot of money for taking
divorce from Laxmi.
7. The prosecutrix further stated that after
10.03.2015 Manoj started showing true colours and started asking
her for money for business purpose by any means and demanded
Rs. 5000 per day from her but she could not tell her trauma to
anyone as she was not having the support of her family members
as well and due to everyday harassment and taunts, her health
deteriorated. Manoj started living with his wife Laxmi and two
children in Trilokpuri and did not pick up her calls. She told
everything to her sister who had come to her parent's house from
Punjab and her sister came to her and took her to doctor and
stayed with her for two days. Manoj had made her sign on blank
cheques which her sister caught and her sister went and told
everything to her parents but till then Manoj had already taken Rs.
4 - 5 lakhs and her entire jewellery worth Rs. 6 lakhs which her
parents had given to her in marriage, were got mortgaged. After
coming to know everything, when her parents tried to speak
to Manoj he vanished and switched off his mobile. She came to
know that
after taking her money and jewellery accused Manoj had left for
his village in Tehri Garwhal alongwith his wife and children. When
she contacted accused on the mobile phone he abused her, told
her not to contact him and refused to return her money
and jewellery and he had married her to usurp her money
and jewellery from her and to save himself from police inquiry
as his financial condition was very bad and the same thing he
had done with other women also. Accused threatened that if she
complained against him he would get her abducted and her family
killed and he had good contacts in the underworld who take
money and kill anyone and he also had contacts in Delhi and he
would destroy her life and she could not do any harm to him.
Accused Manoj Bhandari was still sending her
threatening messages via Whatsapp.
8. Pursuant to the above complaint of the prosecutrix FIR
was registered under Sections 376/493/406/506/34 IPC. The
prosecutrix was got medically examined. Statement of prosecutrix
was got recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter Sections
377/328 IPC were added to FIR. The accused was granted
anticipatory bail. During the course of investigation, an affidavit
of the prosecutrix was found in the office of lawyer Rubina Yasmin
in which she had stated that she

was in love with the accused and was marrying him despite
knowing that he was already married. The accused was formally
arrested. His medical examination was got conducted. The friends
and relatives of the accused could not tell anything about the
second marriage of the accused and stated that they had never
met the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix could not furnish evidence
about the presence of the relatives of the accused in the
marriage. The jewellery bills produced by the prosecutrix which
was supposed to be given to her at the time of the marriage were
got verified from the concerned shops. The prosecutrix did not
produce any marriage certificate of the marriage in Noida. The
factum of marriage could not get verified by the priest. The
charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections
376/406/493/377/328/506/34 IPC.
9. Post compliance of the requirements contemplated under
Section 207 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions. On 14.03.2017 charge for the offences u/s 328, 506 and
417 IPC and also Section 376 IPC and in the alternative under
Section 493 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its
case.
11. The PW 1 / the prosecutrix stated that on 14.02.2013, she
went to the birthday party of her friend Ankita at PVR Saket and
accused Manoj Bhandari met her for the first time there in
the said party and the accused was standing at the gate of PVR
Saket and he got her (prosecutrix's) entry in the PVR Saket Club
without any charges and he introduced himself as the owner of the
said club and stated that he hailed from Uttrakhand and she (PW l)
stated that she also belonged to Uttarakhand and thereafter
accused took her mobile phone number and gave his mobile phone
number to her and thereafter accused started sending messages
on her mobile phone and also used to call her and invited her to
the parties at club and that during those days, she (prosecutrix)
was employed with Snap Deal.
12. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that one day, accused came
outside her office and gave her a call and asked her to come to
see a movie with him but she (prosecutrix) refused his proposal as
she had to go to her house, PW l/prosecutrix further stated that in
the month of May, 2013, he took her for a movie at PVR Saket and
thereafter they both became good friends and accused also got
her (prosecutrix) talk with his brother and bhabhi on mobile
phone. 13. PW l/prosecutrix stated that on 25.10.2013 her
(prosecutrix's) birthday party was organized by accused at the club
of his friend in G.K, for which she had paid Rs.40,0()0/- and the
said party was attended by her (prosecutrix's) brother and elder
sister as well as all her friends and she (prosecutrix) introduced
the accused to her brother, sister as well as friends, as her friend.
14. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that in the end of November,
2013, her office organized a tour to Jaipur and accused insisted to
accompany with her on the said tour and he went with her on the
said tour to Jaipur, where he told her (prosecutrix) that he loved
her and wanted to marry her, to which she asked him to talk with
his as well as her family and in Jaipur, accused stayed with her in
a separate room at Jaipur for two days and thereafter returned to
Delhi. PWl/prosecutrix further stated that thereafter accused told
her that there was a birthday party of sister of his friend namely
Ankit on 07.12.2013 in day time and since it was her (prosecutrix's)
holiday on 07.12.2013, accused called her and took her to the
aforesaid party of his friend's sister at Indira Enclave, Neb Sarai
where two persons were already sitting and she (prosecutrix)
asked accused that he had conveyed her regarding the birthday
party but only two persons were present there and thereafter
Ankit told her that he was going to bring his
friends to the party and Ankit as well as one other person, who
was sitting there with Ankit, left from there by saying aforesaid
facts and asked her to stay there. PW 1/ prosecutrix stated that
accused was alone with her at the said place and thereafter
he switched on the television and he brought a cold drink from the
fridge for her and offered to drink and after drinking the same,
she (prosecutrix) started feeling giddy and had headache and she
became unconscious and when she regained consciousness at
about 4:00 PM she felt that she did not have any control over her
body and accused had already forced himself upon her by that
time and she did not have any clothes over her body' and she was
also bleeding from her private part and had severe pain and when
she started weeping bitterly, accused told her that she was not
the first woman who had sexual intercourse and that all women do
so and these days everyone is doing so and she (prosecutrix) was
very nervous as this had happened to her for the first time and
accused brought Nimbu Pani for her and told her not to worry as
he would be marrying her and he kept talking to her and
counseling her for about two hours and advised her not to make
any complaint against him since he would be marrying her and he
left her at her house at about 6:00

PM.
15. PW l/prosecutrix stated that when she reached home, her
health condition deteriorated and she went to office after two
days and accused used to remain standing outside her office at
about 9:00 AM when she was about to reach office and 6:30 PM
when she used to leave office, everyday, and accused used to tell
her not to worry and that since he had physical relations with her,
he would not leave her in lurch and would marry her and that she
(prosecutrix) tried to forget whatever accused had done with her
and trusted his words that he would marry her and accused told
her that whether physical relations were established once or ten
times, it was all the same.
16. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that on 25.01.2014 accused
took her to Saket J-Block on the pretext that his friend Ankit had
taken a rented accommodation and there the accused had forcible
physical relations with the prosecutrix again stating that whether
said physical relations were made once or ten times it was all the
same and that after 2 —4 days accused took her (prosecutrix) to a
hotel of his friend at Noida and the said hotel had a very strange
atmosphere as there were many rooms in the said hotel and many
girls and boys were also there and accused also hired a room there
and tried to have unnatural sex with her at said place and she got
very angry with accused and told him
that she would tell everything to her family members on which
accused told her that she had no trust in him and assured her that
he would marry her within ten days in a temple.
17. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that on 12.02.2014, accused
purchased a ring for her from a shop at Sector 25, Noida and also
a mangalsutra for her from Laxmi Amba Jewelers at Lajpat
Nagar and on 15.02.2014, he married her in Shiv Sai Mandir at
Sector- 18, Noida where his two bhabhis Anita Rawat and Laxmi
Bhandari, sister Manju and one brother namely Prakash Bisht were
present at the marriage ceremony and his Bhabhi Laxmi Bhandari,
who had come for the ceremony, representing herself to
be bhabhi of accused, was in fact, the wife of accused and the
prosecutrix came to know of this fact later on and she
(prosecutrix) told both the bhabhis and sister of accused
that accused had established physical relations with her prior to
their marriage and Laxmi, Anita and Manju told her (prosecutrix)
that they would go to their native village and would talk to the
parents of accused. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that
thereafter accused and prosecutrix were sent to Nainital for
honeymoon along with Prakash Bisht and Anita, brother
and bhabhi of accused and they all stayed there for three days and
on return, she (prosecutrix) and accused remained happily for 2 —
4
days and thereafter whenever accused desired, he made her take
a leave from her office and took her to a hotel in Sector 18, Noida
and told her that since they were married, the prosecutrix should
have no objection in having physical relations with accused and
accused continued to do so with her for about five months and
when she asked him how long it would continue like this, accused
told her that there was a Pooja at his native village in July and he
would go and inform his parents that he had already married.
18. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that accused went to his
native village in July, 2014 and when he returned back, on the
asking of the prosecutrix, accused told her that his parents had
refused for marriage and they did not believe in marriages
performed in temple and on hearing this, she started crying but
accused consoled her by telling her not to worry and stated that
he wanted some more time to convince his parents to accept her.
19. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that in August, 2014, she
told accused that her parents had searched a boy for her with
whom they wanted to marry her, on which, accused said that it
was not possible for her to marry anyone else since she was his
wife and he (accused) had only asked for some more time from
her.

PW l/prosecutrix further stated that accused used to keep a pistol

with him which he stated was required since he was the owner of
club and was working in it and she (prosecutrix) told accused that
since he had not spoken to his parents, her parents would be
marrying her elsewhere and he had already spoiled her life on
which accused threatened her that if she got married to someone
else, he would kill himself with his pistol and also asked the
prosecutrix to start staying with him which will make their parents
agree for their marriage after some time. PW l/prosecutrix further
stated that accused also told her to leave her job with Snap Deal
and on 15.09.2014, she quit her job at his instance and after about
15 days, accused kept showing her accommodation at different
places for approval for staying together on rent.
20. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that on 04.10.2014, she left
her house with jewelery worth Rs.8 lacs and also
withdrew sum of Rs.60,0()()/- from her bank account at the
instance of accused and accused took her to a rented room at
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I and they both started staying there and in
the meantime, her parents continued to search for her and since
her bank passbook was not found at home, her family went
to bank to enquire from the bank officials who told them that she
(prosecutrix) had
withdrawn money from the bank and they checked the CCTV
footage of the bank wherein she was seen alongwith accused and
they came to know that she was with accused.
21. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that on 10.10.2014, her
parents obtained phone number of accused from one of friends of
prosecutrix and gave him a call and though accused was with her
(prosecutrix) at the rented room at that time, he told the parents
of prosecutrix that he was not with the prosecutrix and the
parents of prosecutrix asked him to meet them and on that day,
accused met her parents in his club and told them that he had
married her (prosecutrix) in a temple and she was his wife and
they both were staying together and accused told her parents that
she (the prosecutrix) was in Bangalore and when accused returned
home, he told her that though he had informed her parents about
their marriage he did not tell them that she was staying with him
and when she asked accused as to why he had concealed this fact,
accused told her that this was a trick from which parents used to
find out about whereabouts of their daughter and if they come to
know of it, they would take her (prosecutrix) away. PW
l/prosecutrix further stated that her parents requested accused to
marry her publicly so that they and their daughter i.e. prosecutrix
were not defamed in the society
and also asked him to make them talk to his parents so that talks
of marriage could be finalized and accused gave a call to his
mother and informed her that he was keeping the prosecutrix with
him and mother of accused told accused that only she (mother of
accused) was in a position to travel to Delhi since his father was in
a critical condition and thereafter, mother, maternal uncle and
brother Manbar of accused came to her (prosecurix's) house for
marriage talks and her parents informed the mother of accused
that accused had taken away the prosecutrix without telling her
family members and her parents advised the family members of
the prosecutrix that it is better for both the families to get them
married. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that their marriage was
fixed for 15.11.2014 and accused told the prosecutrik that till the
time her parents did not print their marriage cards, he would not
allow her to go to her parental house and on 05.11.2014 accused
dropped the prosecutrix at her parent's house and on 06.11.2014
accused and the prosecutrix went to Chandni Chowk for purchase
of wedding clothes.
22. PWl/prosecutrix further stated that on 15.11.2014 accused
called her on phone from the mobile phone of his friend Dheeraj
and told her to come at Select City Walk Mall for five minutes

stating that he had selected a wedding garment for her and

wanted to select the same with her consent and told her that
he was sending his friend Dheeraj and asked her to come with
Dheeraj at Select City Walk Mall and that she (prosecutrix) asked
her sister for going to Select City Walk as accused was calling and
that the sister of prosecutrix allowed her to go for five minutes as
she had to go to marriage Banquet Hall booked by her family for
their marriage. PWl/prosecutrix further stated that she
accompanied Dheeraj in the car and Dheeraj brought her near
Select City Walk Mall and Dheeraj parked the car outside the mall
on the road and called accused through telephone and after 5-7
minutes, accused came there and accused told her that he wanted
to say something to her as he loved her very much and did not
want to lose her and accused further told her that he was a
married person but did not live with his wife Lakshmi, who was in
fact his bhabhi and he had married her through Panchayat after
the death of his brother and that he was only meeting her
expenses and did not have any other relation with wife Laxmi but
now his wife was demanding property from him and on hearing the
same, she (prosecutrix) became very perturbed as only 3-4 hours
were left for the marriage and family members of accused
including his father-in-law Khushal Singh Sanjwan and wife also
reached there and his wife Laxmi told the prosecutrix that she had
no objection to their (prosecutrix and accused) marriage and that
she (Laxmi) only wanted property and Rs. Three Lakhs
from accused.
23. PW l/prosecutrix stated that thereafter accused and his
relatives took her to the chamber of one advocate namely, Ms.
Rubina Yasmin in Saket court, who told the prosecutrix that she
had drafted some documents so that no hindrance could be made
in the marriage and for her protection, she had to sign these
documents and that she (prosecutrix) could not read those
documents as she was very much perturbed and that she had
signed those documents as she was not much literate to read
English and the family members of accused had convinced her to
marry accused and that she signed those documents as she had
faith in accused as well as counsel Ms. Rubina Yasmin and she
(prosecutrix) had no other choice as the aforesaid facts were
revealed at the last moment of their marriage. PW l/prosecutrix
further stated that she was receiving calls from her elder sister
to whom she (prosecutrix) told that she was reaching house and
asked her (elder sister) to reach the house immediately.
24. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that when she was returning
to
25. her house in the car of Dheeraj, she told him why he had not
revealed the aforesaid facts to her and Dheeraj told her that he
was only an employee in the club of accused and he could not
speak against his employer. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that
her sister met her on the downstairs of their house and thereafter,
they went to barat-ghar and the barat reached the barat-ghar and
her marriage was performed with accused and during the marriage
ceremony, accused kept telling her that she should not bother and
the things would become alright with the passage of time and she
could not tell about the aforesaid facts to her family members as
they were very happy with her marriage and that on the next day,
after her marriage with the accused, she went to Mayur Vihar in
his rented premises. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that on
17.11.2014 she went to her parental house for phera-ceremony
and accused informed her that he had to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to his
earlier wife and the said amount was to be shared by accused and
the prosecutrix and she gave Rs. 1.20 lakhs to accused and some
of the amount was given by her on her own and some amount was
taken from her family and after two days, she returned to her
matrimonial house and accused told her that he was making
payment of Rs. 3 lakhs to his earlier wife Lakshmi and for 2-3 days
she was kept properly in the house of accused. PWl/prosecutrix
further stated
26. that on 22.11.2014 Lakshmi alongwith her brother Sonu came
to her matrimonial house and she started abusing from outside
the house and that as neighbours started collecting, she
(prosecutrix) opened the door and that Lakshmi started quarrelling
with her and manhandling her (prosecutrix) and said that she
(Lakshmi) was wife of the accused and questioned how she
(prosecutrix) was residing with accused and when she (prosecutrix)
reminded her that she had herself stated that she (Lakshmi) had
no objection to her (prosecutrixts) marriage with accused, she
(Lakshmi) told her (prosecutrix) that she (Lakshmi) had not been
divorced from accused and could do whatever she wanted and
Lakshmi took away all the good clothes from almirah which were
given by her (prosecutrix's) parents to her and she (prosecutrix)
telephonically informed this fact to accused and when accused
reached the house, she narrated about the incident of quarrel to
accused and accused told her (prosecutrix) that he was going to
the house of Lakshmi to make inquiry from her as to why she had
quarreled with her (prosecutrix). PW l/prosecutrix further stated
that Lakshmi was residing at Ashok Nagar alongwith her brother
and accused returned to the house at about Il P.M - 12 midnight
and also brought back her (prosecutrix's) clothes, which were
taken away by Lakshmi and told her (prosecutrix) that he had
made
27. Lakshmi understand and that if in future Lakshmi or
her relatives came to his house, she (prosecutrix) should not open
the door for them. PW I/prosecutrix further stated that after some
days, Lakshmi again came to her house alongwith her brother in
the presence of accused and he asked Lakshmi why she had come
there to quarrel with prosecutrix to which Lakshmi told them that
she will harass her (prosecutrix) as well as accused in future and
Lakshmi told accused that she wanted money from him and
accused gave Rs. 15000/- to Lakshmi and thereafter she went
away.
28. 25. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that Sonu, brother of
Lakshmi was touching her (prosecutrix's) private parts and
she (prosecutrix) had a quarrel with accused as to why Sonu had
touched her inappropriately and accused told her that if she made
any complaint regarding the said incident, he would also go to jail
and his future would be spoiled and accused told her to keep
quiet upto April, 2015 as by that time he will get divorce from
Laxmi and after taking divorce from Laxmi, he would convey all
the facts to her family members at his level and due to the
aforesaid incidents by Laxmi and her brother, she (prosecutrix)
started feeling upset. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that when
she started becoming depressed, accused took
29.
30. her to the house of his sister at Dehradun where he and
prosecutrix stayed for 4 — 5 days and she (prosecutrix) felt good
and when they both returned from Dehradun, after one day, Laxmi
along with her sister Manju came to the house of accused and
started quarreling and abusing her (prosecutrix) and accused had
introduced Manju to her (prosecutrix) as his cousin
sister but actually she was sister-in-law (sali) of accused and
accused conveyed her that he was also fed up with Laxmi and her
family members as they were greedy persons and she (prosecutrix)
told accused Manoj that she will not tolerate anything in future
and that she was going to her parental house and tell about all the
facts to her parents.
31. 26. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that on 14 / 15.12.2014
after taking two — three clothes from her matrimonial house, she
(prosecutrix) came to her parental house and after about one
hour, Golu (cousin of accused) telephonically informed her that
accused had consumed sleeping pills, after hearing which
she became shocked and within five minutes, she received a call
from Khushal Singh father-in-law of accused who threatened her
(prosecutrix) that accused had consumed sleeping pills because of
her (prosecutrix) and if anything happened to accused, they would
not spare her and father-in-law of accused
32.
33. informed her that accused was admitted
in Kukreja Nursing Home in ICU, in Mayur Vihar and told her to not
visit accused in the hospital otherwise, he will give beatings to
her. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that due to aforesaid facts,
she became so upset that she did not tell anything to her parents
for about two days and after two days, accused made a call to her
from phone of the employee of the nursing home and told her that
he was alright and would be discharged next day and asked her to
come back to the matrimonial house. PW l/prosecutrix further
stated that on the next day, she came to her matrimonial house
and reached there around 10-11 A.M after having keys
from Golu who came there to deliver the same and accused
returned to the house between 3-4 P.M and she (prosecutrix)
asked accused as to why he had consumed the sleeping pills and
he told her that he had taken the sleeping pills to stop her from
going to her parental house and he had taken sleeping pills after
consulting his doctor friend who prescribed a medicine
which made him intoxicated but did not cause any permanent
harm. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that accused could not
recover for about 14-15 days and during said period, Lakshmi or
her family members did not come there to quarrel.
34. 27. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that on 05.01.2015,
Laxmi, Sonu
35.
36. and 8 — 10 other persons came to her house for quarrelling
and Laxmi was saying that she will not allow her (prosecutrix)
to live with accused and Laxmi defamed her (prosecutrix) in
the neighbourhood that she (prosecutrix) was doing the business of
prostitution and due to said quarrel, accused shifted residence
to Pushp Vihar, Saket from Mayur Vihar. PW l/prosecutrix further
stated that accused Manoj used to beat her severely
at Pushp Vihar residence where they had shifted on 17.01.2015
and on
37. 05.01.2015 when Laxmi had come to quarrel with her, she
(prosecutrix) wanted to report the incident to the police and
accused told her that she (prosecutrix) would have to file a
complaint and that while she was drafting the complaint with the
help of accused at her matrimonial home, Laxmi, Manju and their
third sister went to her (prosecutrix) parental house
at Pushp Vihar Sector-3 and quarreled with her (prosecutrix's)
mother and sister and told the parents of prosecutrix that she had
married accused knowing fully well that accused was already
married and due to such feed back, her parents stopped keeping
relations with her.
38. 28. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that on 24.01.2015
accused brought Laxmi and Manju along with him
at Pushp Vihar and all of them started quarreling and beating her
(prosecutrix) and
39. that they all removed her (prosecutrix) all clothes and tied
her and accused thereafter started physically intimating with
Laxmi and Manju in front of her (prosecutrix) and told prosecutrix
that accused was doing such things in front of her as it was his
business and all three of them started pressurizing her
(prosecutrix) for prostitution and accused also told her that she
(prosecutrix) would have to do the work of prostitution and
accused would bring client for her (prosecutrix) at home and
at that time, he also showed her (prosecutrix) obscene videos
from his laptop and asked her (prosecutrix) to do
whatever was seen by her in the videos and when she (prosecutrix)
refused to do so, accused told her that she would have to do all
that and he had married her so that she (prosecutrix) could earn
for him by doing prostitution and she (prosecutrix) was untied by
accused in the morning on the next day and by that time Manju
and Laxmi had already left and she (prosecutrix) could not
file complaint as she was not permitted to go out of the house and
accused and his brother Manbar used to remain in the house itself
the entire time. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that after the
incident of 24.01.2015 accused started putting pressure upon her
(prosecutrix) for doing prostitution. PW l/prosecutrix further
stated that on 25.02.2015 accused gave her severe beatings and
she became unconscious and accused bolted the door of the
40.
41. room from outside and ran away after leaving her and when
she regained consciousness after long time, she (prosecutrix)
called her sister and told her that she (prosecutrix) was unwell
and that her parents and her sister came to her house and took
her to Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital where she (prosecutrix) was
admitted and thereafter she (prosecutrix) was referred
to Safdarjung Hospital as she (prosecutrix) was not feeling well
and her parents were making calls to accused but he did not come
there. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that on the next day in the
morning, accused came to Safdarjung Hospital and that she
(prosecutrix) remained admitted in the Safdarjung Hospital for a
week and after her discharge, she (prosecutrix) returned to her
house at Pushp Vihar and her sister stayed with
her. PWl/prosecutrix further stated that she became depressed
due to her hospitalization and beatings given by accused and when
she (prosecutrix) recovered after about a month, she (prosecutrix)
told everything to her parents and accused had already gone to his
village at the time of her discharge from the hospital and that her
mother had given a call to accused in between and at that time
accused told her (mother of prosecutrix) that his father was sick
and so he was unable to come and that she (prosecutrix) had told
about her mis-happenings to her sister and her sister in turn told
everything to her parents.
42.
43. 29. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that on 30 — 31.03.2015,
Laxmi and Manju went to her (prosecutrix) parental house
at Dakshinpuri and defamed her in the neighbourhood that she
(prosecutrix) was doing work of prostitution and she (prosecutrix)
had grabbed the husband of the Laxmi i.e. accused and that Laxmi
conveyed her (prosecutrix) telephonically that she would come
under their pressure when everybody would leave her alone
including her parents. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that on
15.04.2015, she made her first complaint to the police at PS Saket
but no action was taken by the police on her said complaint. PW
l/prosecutrix further stated that again on
44. 30.04.2015 she made another complaint Ex. PWI/A to ACP
45. Hauz Khas against accused Manoj Bhandari, Laxmi,
Manju, Sonu, Khushal Singh, Manbar, Ganga Singh Rawat, maternal
uncle of accused. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that on
46. 18.05.2015, FIR was lodged by the police on the aforesaid
complaint and her complaint was sent to CAW Cell by the police
and in return CAW Cell used to send her complaint to the police.
PW l/prosecutrix further stated that accused Manoj Bhandari
started sending her (prosecutrix) obscene messages on her mobile
phone and he also used to send photographs by showing cartridges
in his hand to terrorize her and that he also o. 7614/16 Page No.
29 of8] used to threaten to kill her as last option with him.
47. 30. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that accused had also
mortgaged her (prosecutrix's) gold jewelery approximately Rs.7 to
8 lacs which was given by her parents to her at the time of her
marriage and that accused had given her (prosecutrix's) Samsung
TV to Laxmi. PW l/prosecutrix further stated that she
(prosecutrix) had moved an application through her counsel in the
Court for return of her TV and gold jewelery and that she handed
over her marriage photographs performed in a local temple,
receipt of TV and jewelery to the police and that accused has not
returned her jewelery till date. PW l/prosecutrix further stated
that she had also given her marriage photographs Ex.PWl/C (colly)
and original wedding card Ex.PWl/D to the police and that the
police seized the said documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E.
48. 31. The PW-I/prosecutrix further stated that after
registration of FIR, she was taken to AllMS Hospital by the police
for her medical examination where her MLC Ex.PW-1/B was
prepared and her statement u/s. 164 CrPC Ex. PW3/B was
recorded by the learned MM. She also identified her 81 marriage
photographs as Ex.PW-l/C (colly), original wedding card as
49. Ex.PW- 1/1), seizure memo of the documents prepared by
the police as Ex.PW-l/E and seizure memo of jewelery receipts
and warranty card of Samsung TV as Ex.PW- I/F.
50. 32.PW1/prosecutrix further stated in her examination-in-
chief recorded on 16.10.2017 that on the last date of hearing, she
had inadvertently stated that she had stayed with the accused in
one room at Jaipur whereas she had stayed in another room with
her friends and not with the accused and that accused had stayed
in a separate room there.
51. 33.PW2 ASI Kavita, duty officer, recorded FIR Ex.PW2/B in
the present case on 18.05.2015. She stated that she made
endorsement Ex.PW2/A on the rukka received from SI Amit Solanki
and issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW2/C
after registration of FIR.
52. 34.PW3 Ms. Chetna Singh, Ld. MM recorded statement of
prosecutrix u/s 164 CrPC Ex.PW3/B on 19.05.2()15 and
issued certificate Ex.PW3/C.
53. 35.PW4 Dr. Anusha proved the MLC of the
prosecutrix Ex.PWl/B prepared by Dr. Yamini Kansal.
54. 36.PW5 Ct. Dinesh Kumar had taken accused
to AllMS Hospital for his medical examination.
55. 37.PW6 Ms. Rubina Yasmeen, Advocate Notary Public,
chamber no. 17, Saket Court, stated that affidavit Ex.PW-l/DB of
the prosecutrix dated 15.11.2014 was brought by the
prosecutrix alongwith her voter ID card Ex.PW1/DA before her
(PW6) for attestation and she (PW6) had attested the said affidavit
with the seal of notary public vide entry No. 106/2014. PW6 Ms.
Rubina Yasmeen further stated that prosecutrix came to her
chamber alongwith two boys and the father of first wife of
accused had also come in her chamber and she (PW6) advised the
prosecutrix as to why she was going to marry with a person who is
already married with two children but prosecutrix did not pay any
heed to her advise and prosecutrix insisted to notarize her
document by her (PW6).
56. 38.PW7 W/Ct. Savita had taken the prosecutrix
to AllMS Hospital for her medical examination on 18.05.2015.
57. 39.PW8 Smt. 'R, mother of the prosecutrix stated that her
daughter/prosecutrix was married on 15.11.2014 as per Hindu
58.
59. Rites and Customs with accused Manoj Bhandari at
Barat Ghar, Laxmi Bai Nagar and they had spent Rs. 15-16 lakhs on
the marriage of prosecutrix and the prosecutrix was given dowry
articles as per their financial status and she (PW8) had given
gold jewelery articles amounting to Rs. 7-8 lakhs which accused
had mortgaged. PW8 Smt. R, mother of prosecutrix further stated
that the prosecutrix told her that accused had already married her
(prosecutrix) on 15.02.2014 in a temple at Sector18, Noida and
hence, they (PW8 and her family) had arranged marriage of
prosecutrix with accused in society. PW8 Smt. R further corrected
herself and stated that the accused had told this fact to her and
not prosecutrix and accused had also shown marriage photographs
of prosecutrix with him and that the accused had taken the
prosecutrix to a rented accommodation in Mayur Vihar after her
marriage and his family and relatives had also joined the marriage
ceremony.
60. 40.PW8 / mother of prosecutrix further stated that on
05.01.2015, she (PW8) came to know that accused was already
married and had two children and the said fact came to her
knowledge from two sisters of earlier wife of accused and the
accused was confronted with the said facts and accused told her
(PW8) that he (accused) had not married and they could call the
police if
61. any person came to inform this fact.
62. 41.PW8 /mother of prosecutrix further stated that accused
started torturing her daughter/prosecutrix after marriage and he
used to tell prosecutrix to bring money from her parents and they
did not pay any money to accused and the prosecutrix told her
(PW8) that she (prosecutrix) was given beatings by accused and his
family members i.e. parents of accused, his brother, wife Laxmi
Bhandari and father and brother of Laxmi Bhandari and that the
said fact was told to her by the prosecutrix later on and that the
prosecutrix was got treated at Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital at
Malviya Nagar and that thereafter she was referred
to Safdarjang Hospital for further treatment from where she
got her treatment and that the prosecutrix was having swelling on
her kidney part.
63. 42.PW9 10 W/SI Nitesh Sharma stated that on 18.05.2015 she
received present matter for investigation after registration of FIR
on the directions of SHO and that the prosecutrix came to her
(PW9) and she (prosecutrix) was sent for her medical examination
through W/Ct. Savita to AllMS Hospital. PW9 10 W/SI Nitesh
Sharma further stated that on 19.05,2015 the prosecutrix was
produced before Ld. MM for recording of her
64. statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. PW910 W/SI Nitesh Sharma
further stated that search was made for accused but he was not
traceable and he got anticipatory bail.
65. 43.PW9 10 W/SI Nitesh Sharma further stated that on
15.06.2015 accused came in the police station alongwith his friend
and produced his anticipatory bail order granted by Id. ASJ, before
her (PW9) and she arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A
and released him on bail.
66. 44.pw9 10 W/SI Nitesh further stated that on
23.06.2015 potency test of accused was got conducted and she
(PW9) received one blood sample and sample seal after medical
examination of accused and the same were seized vide seizure
memo Ex.PW9/B and were deposited in the malkhana. PW9
further stated that the bills / receipts provided by the prosecutrix
during investigation were got verified and same were found
correct but she did not record statement of any witness in this
regard.
67. 45. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed by Ld. Addl.
PP for
State.
46. Statement of accused was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence
against him and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case
by the prosecutrix only to harass and humiliate him.
47. I have heard the arguments from Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Addl.
PP assisted by Sh. Vishesh Wadhwa, Id. counsel for prosecutrix and
from Sh. Kamal Bhati, Id. counsel for accused and carefully
perused the record.
48. Ld. Addl. PP has contended that in her complaint dated
30.04.2015 the prosecutrix has made allegations that in the year
2013 accused befriended the prosecutrix concealing the fact that
he was already married and thereafter the accused took phone
number of the prosecutrix and started talking to the prosecutrix
and sending text messages and started inviting the prosecutrix to
parties and on 07.12.2013 he took the prosecutrix to the house of
his friend Ankit at Indra Enclave, Neb Sarai on the pretext of party
and there accused offered cold drink laced with intoxicating
substance to the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her and
after commission of rape the accused promised the prosecutrix
that he will marry her and on the said promise of accused, the
prosecutrix did not lodge any complaint with the
police. Ld. Addl. PP has further contended that on 25.01.2014 the
accused took the prosecutrix to J-Block, Saket on the pretext that
his friend Ankit had taken rented accommodation and there also
the accused had forcibly established physical relations with the
prosecutrix and thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken to a hotel in
NOIDA by accused and there the accused committed unnatural sex
with the prosecutrix. Ld. Addl. PP has contended that on
15.02.2014 the accused married the prosecutrix at a temple in
Sector-18, NOIDA by concealing the fact of his previous marriage
and thereafter, the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual
intercourse by the accused. Ld. Addl. PP has contended that on
04.10.2014 the prosecutrix left her parental house and started
residing with accused in a rented accommodation and thereafter
the parents of the prosecutrix contacted the accused and the
accused informed the parents of the prosecutrix that he had
married the prosecutrix in the temple and they were staying
together as husband and wife. Ld. Addl. PP has further contended
that thereafter the mother and other family members of the
accused approached the family of the prosecutrix and their
marriage was fixed on 15.11.2014 and on
15.11.2014 the accused disclosed to the prosecutrix that he was
already manied but finding no other way as all the arrangements
for marriage had been planned, the prosecutrix married with the
No. of81
accused and after 15.11.2014 accused and prosecutrix started
residing as husband and wife and thereafter the first wife of
accused started torturing the prosecutrix and on 14/15.12.2014
the prosecutrix left her matrimonial house and came to
her parent's house.
49.Ld. Addl. PP has contended that firstly the accused had forcibly
established physical relations with the prosecutrix and in order to
avoid making of any complaint by the prosecutrix to police, the
accused promised marriage to the prosecutrix by concealing that
he was already married and the marriage which was solemnised in
the temple by the accused with the prosecutrix and the social
marriage solemnised on 15.11.2014 were void in view of the
provision of the Hindu Marriage Act.
50.Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that the prosecutrix is
an educated adult female, who has been working since the year
2010 and she insisted accused to accompany her to Jaipur in a
trip organised by her office and the prosecutrix was aware about
the marital status of the accused and despite that she wanted to
marry the accused although accused was reluctant. Ld. Counsel
for accused has contended that although the prosecution has
alleged that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with
the prosecutrix on 07.12.2013 forcibly at the house of his friend at
Indra Enclave and then on 25.01.2014 at J-Block, Saket in the
rented accommodation of his friend Ankit and thereafter in the
hotel in NOIDA but no evidence to this effect has been adduced by
the prosecution. Ld. Counsel for accused has further contended
that the allegation that the accused solemnised marriage with the
prosecutrix in the temple in Sector-18, NOIDA on 15.02.2014 is
also not supported by any evidence and in the chargesheet also 10
has mentioned that the prosecutrix was asked to
produce marriage certificate but the prosecutrix could not
produce any certificate and thereafter the Pujari of the temple
also stated that no such marriage was solemnised by him. Ld.
Counsel for accused has contended that the prosecutrix has failed
to prove that prior to 15.11.2014 there was any physical relation
between the accused and the prosecutrix.
51.Ld. counsel for accused has flirther contended that on
15.11.2014 marriage was solemnised between accused and
prosecutrix on the insistence of the prosecutrix and the
prosecutrix was informed by the accused about his previous
marital status but despite that the prosecutrix insisted accused to
marry her. Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that the

the prosecutrix on 07.12.2013 forcibly at the house of his friend at

Indra Enclave and then on 25.01.2014 at J-Block, Saket in the
rented accommodation of his friend Ankit and thereafter in the
hotel in NOIDA but no evidence to this effect has been adduced by
the prosecution. Ld. Counsel for accused has further contended
that the allegation that the accused solemnised marriage with the
prosecutrix in the temple in Sector-18, NOIDA on 15.02.2014 is
also not supported by any evidence and in the chargesheet also 10
has mentioned that the prosecutrix was asked to produce marriage
certificate but the prosecutrix could not produce any certificate
and thereafter the Pujari of the temple also stated that no such
marriage was solemnised by him. Ld. Counsel for accused has
contended that the prosecutrix has failed to prove that prior to
15.11.2014 there was any physical relation between the accused
and the prosecutrix.
51 .Ld. counsel for accused has further contended that on
15.1 1.2014 marriage was solemnised between accused and
prosecutrix on the insistence of the prosecutrix and the
prosecutrix was informed by the accused about his previous
marital status but despite that the prosecutrix insisted accused to
marry her. Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that the
prosecutrix has also signed an affidavit bearing her photograph
and supported by her address proof in which she has stated that
she was aware of the marital status of the accused and
despite that she is willing to marry the accused. Ld. Counsel for
accused has contended that Ms. Rubina Yasmeen, Notary Public,
has attested the said affidavit of the prosecutrix and Ms. Rubina
Yasmeen was examined as PW6 and she specifically stated that she
had informed and asked the prosecutrix as to why she is willing to
marry the person who is already manied but despite that the
prosecutrix insisted on marrying the accused. Ld. counsel for
accused has contended that the marriage which
was solemnised between accused and the prosecutrix on
15.11.2014 was not attended by any other family members of
accused and was only attended by family members of prosecutrix
as the said marriage was solemnised on the insistence of the
prosecutrix. Ld. counsel for accused has further contended that
since the marriage between accused and the prosecutrix
was solemnised on 15.11.2014 with the consent of the prosecutrix
and the previous marital status of the accused was in the
knowledge of the prosecutrix, hence, accused has not committed
offences as alleged.
52. Ld. counsel for accused has further contended that since the
prosecutrix had herself married the accused out of her own
free will despite knowing the marital status of the accused hence,
she did not make any complaint to any authority till April, 2015.
Ld. Counsel for accused has further contended that the problem
arose because the prosecutrix was insisting the accused to divorce
his first wife but the accused did not divorce his first wife and on
that account the prosecutrix has lodged the present case against
accused in order to pressurise the accused to divorce his first
wife. Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that he is heavily
relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar
v. state of Kerala, 2014 (5) SCC 678 as the facts of the said case
squarely cover the facts of the present case. Ld. counsel for
accused has also relied upon decisions in
Ashwani Bhatia v. State of Haryana and another,
AICLR 245; Anjali Aggarwal and another v. State of Haryana,
2011 (2) R.CR. (Criminal) 228; Tej Kaur v. Amarjit Kaur, 1993 (1)
HLR 494 and ; Mahesh Kumar Dhawan v. State of
M.P. and another, 2012 (2) DMC 608.
53. The prosecutrix appeared in the witness box as PW 1 and
stated that she met accused for the first time on 14.02.2013 in the
birthday party of her friend and thereafter, in May, 2013accused
took her for a movie and they became good friends and in the end
of November, 2013 her office organised a tour to Jaipur and
accused insisted to accompany her to the said tour and accused
went alongwith her on the tour to Jaipur and in Jaipur accused
told her that he loves her and wanted to marry her and the
accused and the prosecutrix stayed in a separate room for two
days. However, in the further examination-in-chief which was
recorded on 16.10.2017, the prosecutrix stated that on the last
date of hearing she had inadvertently deposed that she had stayed
with the accused in one room at Jaipur whereas she had stayed in
another room with her friends and not with the accused and
accused had stayed in a separate room there. The
prosecutrix/PW1 further stated in her examination that on
07.12.2013 accused took her to birthday party of the sister of his
friend namely Ankit at Indra Enclave, Neb Sarai and there
the accused offered her cold drink and she became unconscious
and after regaining consciousness, she found that she has been
raped and the accused told her not to worry and he will marry her
and the accused also advised her not to make any complaint as he
would be marrying her. The prosecutrix/PWl further stated in
examination-in-chief that on 25.01.2014 the accused took her to J-
Block, Saket on the pretext that Ankit who is the friend
of accused, had taken rented accommodation and there accused
case No. 7614/16 Page No. 42 Qf81
had forcible physical relations with her and after 2-4 days,
accused took her to a hotel of his friend in Noida and accused
tried to have unnatural sex with her there and she got angry with
the accused and accused assured her that he would many her
within ten days in a temple.
54. The contention which has been raised on behalf of accused is
that there is no evidence to the effect that the accused had
committed rape on the prosecutrix on 07.12.2013, 25.01.2014 and
that accused attempted to commit unnatural sex with the
prosecutrix in a hotel in Noida. The contention of accused is that
in case the prosecutrix was raped by accused on 07.12.2013 then
the prosecutrix would have disclosed about the same to any of her
family member or any other person but the prosecutrix has not
lodged any complaint to this effect and thereafter, also the
prosecutrix continued to meet the accused and in
the circumstances, the allegation of commission of rape on the
prosecutrix by accused on 25.01.2014 at J-Block, Saket at the
house of accused, is also false and the prosecution has also not
proved that the prosecutrix was allegedly taken by the accused to
hotel where accused attempted to have unnatural sex with the

prosecutrix.
55. The prosecutrix/ PW I stated in cross examination that she
has been working since the year 2009 and she met accused for the
first time on 14.02.2013 and she had love affair with accused since
October, 2013. The prosecutrix/PW1 further stated in cross
examination that after she started having love affair with the
accused, she used to talk to him routinely on phone and also
exchanged messages with him and met him frequently. In the
cross examination, the prosecutrix/PWl admitted that prior to
February, 2014 she did not make any complaint to any of her
family members nor informed them about her affair with the
accused. The prosecutrix/PWl further stated in the cross
examination that prior to February, 2014 accused forced himself
upon her sexually on two occasions and thereafter, PW
l/prosecutrix stated that it is correct that on both these occasions,
she did not make any complaint against the accused to her family
or to the police or any other administrative authority. The
prosecutrix/PWl further stated in cross examination that it is
correct that she did not take any medical treatment when accused
forced himself upon her for the first time.
Thereafter, PWl/prosecutrix further stated in cross examination
that it is correct that she continued to meet him even though he
had committed rape upon her. The prosecutrix/PW1 stated in
cross examination that she has
mentioned in her complaint Ex.PW1/A that accused used to
threaten her and the prosecutrix/PWl was confronted
with statement Ex.PW1/A where it was not so recorded.
56. The prosecutrix/PW1 flirther stated in cross examination
that she had gone to Jaipur with accused in November, 2013 and
she stayed with him at Jaipur for about two days. The
prosecutrix/PWl further stated that it is correct that she
never informed her family members that she had gone to Noida
and other places for outings with accused. The
prosecutrix/PWl further stated in cross examination that it is
correct that when accused committed rape upon her at hotel at
Noida, she did not make any complaint against the accused to the
hotel manager, staff, etc. The prosecutrix/PWl further stated in
cross examination that it is correct that she did not inform her
parents about the incident of rape with her which had taken place
at hotel in Noida and she voluntarily stated that accused had
already married her in a temple on 15.02.2014. The prosecutrix/
PW 1 further stated in cross examination that it is correct
that when accused had physical relations with her at Noida, they
were already married and were husband and wife.
57. The prosecutrix/PW1 further stated in cross examination
that it
is correct that she did not complain about the incident of
07.12.2013 to police or her parents or any other authority and she
did not get herself medically examined after the incident. The
prosecutrix/PWl further stated in cross examination that it is
correct that she did not mention about the incident of
07.12.2013 and the incident of Noida in her complaint Ex.PW1/A.
58. 'R', the mother of prosecutrix appeared in witness box
as PW8 and stated in cross examination that the prosecutrix
made complaint against the accused only on 18.03.2015 and prior
to
18.03.2015 the prosecutrix never make any kind of complaint to
her about the accused. The IO/SI Nitesh / PW9 stated in cross
examination that during the course of investigation she did not get
any proof of incident of alleged rape of the prosecutrix by the
accused at Indra Enclave, Neb Sarai or at J-Block, Saket. 10 W/SI
Nitesh / PW9 stated in cross examination that the prosecutrix did
not give her details of the hotel in Noida where she claimed that
accused had taken her. Hence, as per the evidence adduced by
prosecution, apart from the testimony of the prosecutrix, there is
no other evidence to corroborate the testimony of prosecutrix that
accused had committed rape upon her on 07.12.2013 at Indra
Enclave, Neb Sarai and on

25.01.2014 at the residence of Ankit at J-Block, Saket and the

accused had also taken her to hotel in Noida.
59. The another allegation of the prosecutrix is that on 15.02.2014
the accused underwent a fraudulent marriage with the prosecutrix
and caused her to sexual intercourse and co-habit with her after
deceitfully inducing her to believe that she was lawfully married
wife of the accused.
60. The prosecutrix/PW1 stated in examination-in-chief that on
15.02.2()14 accused married her at Shiv Sai Mandir, Sector-
18, Noida and two bhabhis Anita Rawat and Laxmi Bhandari, sister
Manju and Prakash Bisht, brother of accused were present in the
said marriage. The prosecutrix/PW1 further stated in examination-
in-chief that Laxmi Bhandari who had come for the ceremony
representing to be bhabhi of accused, was in fact wife of accused
and she (prosecutrix) came to know about this fact later on. The
prosecutrix/PWl further stated in examination-inchief that
thereafter accused and she (prosecutrix) were sent to Nainital
for honeymoon with Prakash Bisht and Anita,
brother and bhabhi of accused and they stayed there for three
days and upon return, they remained happily for 2-4 days and
thereafter whenever accused desired he made her take leave from
her

office and took her to a hotel in Sector-18 Noida and accused told
her that since they were married, she (prosecutrix) should have no
objection in having physical relations with her and accused
continued to do so for about five months.
61. The contention which has been raised on behalf of accused is
that no such marriage of accused was solemnised with the
prosecutrix on 15.02.2014 at Shiv Sai Mandir at Sector-18, Noida
and no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove the
same.
62. In the chargesheet, it is stated that the complainant was
asked to produce the marriage certificate of her
marriage solemnised with accused at Shiv Sai Mandir, Sector-18,
Noida but the prosecutrix failed to produce the same and the
concerned priest was asked to furnish the evidence of the
marriage and the priest was asked to reveal about his presence in
the marriage but he stated that the marriage of the prosecutrix
was not solemnised in his presence neither he had any idea about
this lady (prosecutrix). 10 / SI Nitesh / PW9 stated in cross
examination that she had enquired from the pujari of the temple
where the prosecutrix stated that her marriage
was solemnised with accused on 15.02.2014 and the said pujari
told her that he had
not solemnised marriage between accused and the prosecutrix.
The prosecution has not produced any evidence to corroborate the
testimony of the prosecutrix that the marriage of prosecutrix
was solemnised with the accused on 15.02.2014 at Shiv Sai Mandir
as alleged by the prosecutrix.
63. The contention which has been raised on behalf of the
accused is that the prosecutrix was aware that he is already
married and has two children and the prosecutrix despite knowing
the factum of previous marriage of the accused insisted for
marrying the accused and the accused reluctantly married the
prosecutrix on
15.11.2014 and the same is evident from the fact that the
said marriage was attended by the brother and maternal uncle of
the accused and no other family member of the accused attended
the said marriage and the entire family of the prosecutrix
had attended the said marriage. It is contended on behalf of
accused that the prosecutrix had sworn an affidavit before Ms.
Rubina Yasmin, advocate / Notary Public on 15.11 in which
the prosecutrix has clearly stated that she was aware about the
previous marriage of the accused and despite that she is willing to
marry the accused and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that
the accused played any kind of deception on the prosecutrix or
induced the prosecutrix to marry him after making her

believe that he is unmarried. The contention which has been

raised on behalf of accused is that the sexual relations were
established by the accused with the prosecutrix only after the
marriage of accused with the prosecutrix on 15.11.2014 and in the
circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused had sexual
intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will or consent.
64. The prosecutrix/PW1 stated in examination-in-chief that on
04.10.2014 she left her house and accused took her to a rented
room at Mayur Vihar Phase-I and they started staying there and on
10.10.2014 her parents obtained phone number of accused and her
parents asked accused to meet them and on that day, accused
met her parents and told that he had married her (prosecutrix) in
a temple and that the prosecutrix was his wife and they were
staying together and thereafter her parents requested accused to
marry her publicly so that their daughter (prosecutrix) was not
defamed in the society. The prosecutrix / PW I further stated that
the mother of accused and his maternal uncle and
brother Manbar came to her house for marriage talks with accused
and their man-iage date was fixed for 15.11.2014. The prosecutrix
/ PW1 further stated in examination-in-chief that on 15.11.2014
accused called her on phone from the mobile phone of his friend
Dheeraj and told her to come at Select case No. 7614/16

CityWalk Mall for five minutes as he had selected a wedding

garment for her and wanted her to select the same with her
consent and she met the accused at Select CityWalk Mall and
accused told her that he is a married person but does not live with
his wife Lakshmi and accused stated that his wife was in fact
his bhabhi and he was married with her through Panchayat after
the death of his brother and accused further told her that he was
only meeting expenses of Lakshni and did not have any other
relation with her and that Lakshmi was now demanding property
from him. The prosecutrix/PW1 further stated in examination-in-
chief that on hearing this, she became perturbed as only 3-4 hours
were left for her marriage with accused and the family members
of the accused including his father-in-law Khushal
Singh Sanjwan and the wife of accused also reached there and the
wife of accused told her that she had no objection to her marriage
with the accused and she only wanted property and Rs. 3 lacs from
accused and thereafter the accused and his relatives took her to
the chamber of one advocate namely, Ms. Rubina Yasmin in Saket
Court and the said advocate told her that she had drafted some
documents so that no hindrance could be made in marriage and
for her protection, she had to sign those documents but she could
not read those documents as she was very much perturbed and
family members of accused
convinced her to marry with accused. The prosecutrix / PWI
further stated that in examination-in-chief that she signed those
documents as she had faith on accused and counsel Ms. Rubina
Yasmin and she had no other choice as the aforesaid documents
were revealed at the last moment of her marriage.
65. In the cross examination, the prosecutrix/PW1 was shown
affidavit dated 15.11.2014 from the judicial file and the
prosecutrix/PWl stated that it bears her signatures and thumb
impressions on each page and the affidavit is Ex.PW1/DA and the
same bears her photograph at portion encircled at point C. The
prosecutrix/PWl further stated that the photocopy of the voter ID
card Ex.PW1/DB is annexed with affidavit Ex.PW1/DA.
66. The prosecutrix/PWl further stated in cross examination that
she had met Smt. Rubina Yasmeen, advocate at Chamber No.17,
Lawyer's Block, Saket District Court, on 15.11.2014. PW
l/prosecutrix further stated in cross examination that she did not
remember if she signed register in Chamber of Smt. Rubina. The
prosecutrix/PW1 further stated in cross examination that at that
time, Laxmi, wife of accused Manoj, Manju (sister-in-law of
accused), Sonu (brother-in-law of accused) and Kushal Singh
(father-in-law of accused) were present and there were two more
persons whose name she did not remember. The
prosecutrix/PWl further stated that both the children of accused
were not present there and the prosecutrix/PWl was confronted
with complaint Ex.PW-l/A where it was so recorded.
67. The prosecutrix / PW I further stated in cross examination
that she reached Saket Court at about 2:00 — 2:30 PM and stayed
there for about 1 1 1/2 hours. The prosecutrix/PWl further stated
in cross examination that it is correct that during the said period
of I 1 1/2 hours, accused neither threatened her nor showed her
any weapon and she did not make any complaint to anyone at
Saket Court that her signatures had been taken forcibly on
affidavit Ex.PW-l/DA. The prosecutrix/PWl further stated in cross
examination that it is correct that from
15.1 1.2014 i.e. the date of the execution of
affidavit Ex.PWIIDA till 30.04.2015 when she filed her complaint
Ex.PW-1/A, she did not file any complaint against Smt. Rubina
Yasmeen, advocate, or the witnesses to the affidavit or the other
persons who were present when she was made to sign the said
affidavit. The prosecutrix/PWl further stated in cross examination
that it is correct that she did not inform her family members
about the affidavit Ex.PW- I/DA and she volunteered to state that
she informed her family in the month of February, 2015.
68, Smt. Rubina Yasmin, advocate appeared in the witness box as
PW6 and stated that the affidavit Ex.PWl/DB dated 15.11.2014
was brought to her by the prosecutrix for attestation and the
prosecutrix also produced her voter ID as her identity proof and
photocopy of her voter ID card is Ex.PWl/DA and the said affidavit
comprising of three pages was duly attested by her and bears her
signatures at point X with the seal of Notary Public at point Y vide
entry no. 106/2014. PW6/ Ms. Rubina Yasmin further stated in
examination-in-chief that she advised the prosecutrix why she is
going to marry a person who is already married with two children
but she did not pay any heed to her advise and insisted upon
to notarise the document brought by her. In the cross
examination, PW6/ Ms. Rubina Yasmin stated that she cannot
state if the person with whom the prosecutrix intended to marry
was also present with her on that day since there were several
persons inside her chamber at that time. PW6 further stated in
cross examination that the prosecutrix was fully oriented and was
not under any kind of fear and pressure. Thereafter, PW6
voluntarily stated in cross examination that she (PW6) had tried to
make her (prosecutrix) understand several times not to marry a
married man but the prosecutrix was not

ready to listen to her advise. PW6 further stated in cross

examination that the prosecutrix was adamant to marry the
accused and the prosecutrix told her that if she (PW6)
would not arise and attest her affidavit then prosecutrix/PW1
would go to someone else for it. PW6 further stated in cross
examination that the prosecutrix had come to Saket court for
attestation of affidavit which she had brought with her but she
was not aware from where the prosecutrix got the said affidavit
prepared.
69. PW6/Ms. Rubina Yasmin further stated in cross examination
that she had read over the contents of affidavit to the prosecutrix
and confirmed whether she knew about the contents
before attesting the same. PW6 further stated in cross
examination that it is correct it is mentioned in the
affidavit Ex.PWl/DB of prosecutrix that she was aware that
accused was married and despite that she wanted to marry the
accused. PW6 further stated in cross examination that she had
told her that it was illegal for her to marry a married man without
the first marriage of that person having been dissolved by a decree
of divorce passed by a court of competent jurisdiction.
70. The contention which has been raised on behalf of accused is
that at the time of solemnisation of marriage on 15.11.2014 the
prosecutrix was aware that accused is already married and having
two children and despite that the prosecutrix married the accused
and in the circumstances as the prosecutrix who was an educated
lady and was major cannot complain that the accused married her
despite having been previously married and established physical
relations with her against her consent.
71. The contention which has been raised on behalf of
prosecutrix is that the affidavit Ex.PWl/DB is not in consonance
with the Hindu Man-iage Act, 1955 and the same is not an
admissible document. It is to be noted that the
affidavit Ex.PW1[DB on which reliance has been placed by the
prosecution has been filed to show that the prosecutrix was made
aware of the marital status of the accused prior
to solemnisation of marriage with accused on 15.11.2014.
72. The contention of Id. counsel for accused is that since the
prosecutrix was already aware of the marital status of the accused
before solemnisation of marriage with the accused on
15.11.2014 and the prosecutrix is an educated adult female hence,
in view of decision in Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala (supra),
accused is liable to be acquitted for the offence u/s 376 IPC.

73. In Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala, (supra) Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India has been pleased to hold •
9. We are fully mindful receptive, conscious and concerned of the
fact that the Appellant has been found guilty and has been
punished by both the Courts below for the reprehensible crime of
the rape of the prosecutrix. However, we consider that the verdict
manifests a misunderstanding and misapplication of the law and
misreading of the facts unraveled by the examination of the
witnesses. Firstly, the prosecutrix is a graduate and even
otherwise is not a gullible women of feeble intellect as is evident
from her conduct in completing her examination successfully even
on the eventful day, i.e. 19.4.2000. In fact she has displayed
mental maturity of an advanced and unusual scale. We are
convinced that she was aware that a legal marriage could not be
performed and, therefore, was content for the time being that an
agreement for marriage be executed. Secondly, the testimony of
PW4 and PW5 independently indicates that the prosecutrix had
been made aware by knowledgeable and independent persons that
no legally efficacious marriage had occurred between the couple.
Thirdly, this state of affairs can reasonably be deduced from the
fact that, possibly on the prompting of the prosecutrix, the
Appellant had consulted an Imam, who both the parties were
aware, had not recommended the Appellant 's conversion to Islam,
obviously because of his marital status and the law enunciated by
this Court in this context. Palpably, had he been a bachelor at

that time, there would have been no plausible reason for the
Imam's reluctance to carry out his conversion. Nay, in the ordinary
course, he would have been welcomed to that faith, as well as by
his prospective wife's family, making any opposition even by the
latter totally improbable. For reasons recondite, the Imam has
also not been examined by the prosecution. Fourthly, if he was a
bachelor there would have been no impediment whatsoever for
them to marry under the Special Marriage Act. Fifthly, we cannot
discount the statement attributed to the prosecutrix that her faith
permitted polygamy; on extrapolation it would indicate that she
was aware that the Appellant was already married and
nevertheless she was willing to enter into a relationship akin to
marriage with the Appellant, albeit, in the expectation that he
may divorce his wife. Sixthly, the prosecution should have
investigated the manner in which the prosecutrix's uncle came into
possession of the Appellant's marriage photograph, specially since
it is his defence that he had given the photograph to the
prosecutrix when she had insisted, on the threat of suicide, that
they should marry each other. The Appellant has also stated that
this photograph had been entrusted to Fathima, on the prosecutrix
's own showing, was her confidant. Again, for reasons that are
unfathomable, the prosecution has not produced these witnesses,
leading to the only inference that had they been produced, the
duplicity in professing ignorance of the Appellant 's marital status
would have been exposed. The role of the prosecution is to
unravel the truth, and to bring to book the guilty, and not to
sentence the
innocent. But we are distressed that this important responsibility
has been cast to the winds. In fact, learned counsel for the State
has contended that Fathima could have been produced by the
Appellant, which argument has only to be stated for it to be
stoutly rejected. The Court can fairly deduce from such an
argument that had Fathima been examined she would have spoken
in favour of the Appellant. Seventhly, it has not been controverted
by the prosecutrix that the Appellant had made all arrangements
requisite and necessary for setting up a home with the
prosecutrix. The present case is not one where the Appellant has
prevailed on the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with him
on the assurance that they were legally wedded; the prosecutrix
was discerning and intelligent enough to know otherwise. The
facts as have emerged are that the couple were infatuated with
each other and wanted to live together in a relationship as close
to matrimony as the circumstances would permit. Eightly, as
already stated, Sasi should have been examined by the
prosecution as she was a material witness and would have testified
as to the state of mind of the prosecutrix. Finally, the law has
been succinctly clarified in Kaini Rajan. The Court is duty bound
when assessing the presence or absence of consent, to satisfy
itself that both parties are ad idem on essential features; in the
case in hand that the prosecutrix was lead to believe that her
marriage to the Appellant had been duly and legally performed. It
is not sufficient that she convinced herself of the existence of
this jäctual matrix, without the Appellant inducing or

persuading her to arrive at that conclusion. It is not possible to

convict a person who did not hold out any promise or make any
misstatement offacts or law or who presented a false scenario
which had the consequence of inducing the other party into the
commission of an act. There may be cases where one party may,
owing to his or her own hallucinations, believe in the existence of
a scenario which is a mirage and in the creation of which the other
party has made no contribution. If the other party is forthright or
honest in endeavouring to present the correct picture, such party
cannot obviously be found culpable. The following paragraph
from Deelip Singh v State of Bihar, 2004(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 972
: 2005 (1) SCC 88, is extracted:
19. The factors set out in the first part of Section 90 are from the
point of view of the victim. The second part of Section 90
enacts the corresponding provision from the point of view of the
accused. It envisages that the accused too has knowledge or has
reason to believe that the consent was given by the victim in
consequence of fear of injury or misconception of fact. Thus, the
second part lays emphasis on the knowledge or reasonable belief
of the person who obtains the tainted consent. The requirements
of both the parts should be cumulatively satisfied. In other words,
the court has to see whether the person giving the consent had
given it under fear of injury or misconception off act and the court
should also be satisfied that the person doing the act i.e. the
alleged offender, is conscious of the fact or should have reason to
think that but for the fear or misconception, the consent would
not have been given. This is the scheme of Section 90 which is
couched in negative terminology ".
74.0n behalf of the prosecutrix it is vehemently contended that
even if the prosecutrix was made aware of the fact of previous
marriage of the accused with Laxmi Bhandari but still the accused
is liable to be convicted for commission of offence u/s 376 IPC and
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhupinder
Singh v. U. T. of Chandigarh, (2008) 8 SCC 531, has been placed.
75. In Bhupinder Singh v. U.T. of Chandigarh, (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold :
8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that
when the complainant knew that he was a married man and yet
consented for sexual intercourse with him, Clause "Fourthly" of
Section 375 IPC would have no application. It was also submitted
that the fact that the complainant knew about his being a married
man, is clearly established from the averments made in a suit filed
by her where she had sought for a declaration that she is the wife
of the accused. The sentence imposed is stated to be of8/ harsh.
It was, however, pointed out that the compensation, as awarded
by the High Court, has been deposited and withdrawn by the
complainant.
9. Learned counsel for the State submitted that it is a clear
case where Clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 IPC is applicable.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that this was a
case where no reduction in sentence was uncalled for. The High
Court proceeded on an erroneous impression that the complainant
knew that the accused was a married man. It was also submitted
that the compensation as awarded, is on the lower side.
10. Clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 [PC reads as follows:
"375 Rape - A man is said to commit "rape', who, except in the
case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman
under circumstances falling under any of the six
following descriptions:-
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.
ll. Though it is urged with some amount of
vehemence that when 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 accused appellant 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 accused-appellant could not
have lawfully married the complainant. A bare reading of
Clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 [PC makes this position clear. It is
pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that the date of
knowledge claimed by the complainant is 6.3.1994, but the first
information report was lodged on 19.9.1994. The complainant has
explained that she delivered a child immediately after learning
about the incident on 16.4.1994 and, therefore, was not in a
position to lodge the complaint earlier. According to her she was
totally traumatized on learning about the marriage of the accused-
appellant. Though the explanation is really not satisfactory, but in
view of the position in law that the accused was really guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 376 [PC, the delayed
approach of the complainant cannot, in any event, wash away the
offence.
76. In Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala, (supra) Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has been pleased to hold :
5. Obviously, the statement of PW2 forms the

fulcrum of the case. According to her the Appellant had

introduced himself as a student of B.C.M. College, Kottayam and
after they had daily telephonic conversations, they consented to
meet each other in person. On 17.1.2000 she accompanied him
to Ponmudi, where he proposed marriage to her and they were
in each others company from 11.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. As already
noted, the prosecutrix has, inter alia, stated that - "He told me
that after conversion marriage can be performed and to know
about it went to meet Imam of Palayam Mosque who told him that
conversion is not possible just for marriage and therefore
conversion is possible only after a registered marriage. Thus I
agreed for marriage. He told me that the marriage would be
registered on 19th. " In our opinion this statement is indeed
telltale. We cannot lose perspective of the fact that the
prosecutrix is a graduate having exercised exemplary
steadfastness, responsibility, resolve and discipline in appearing in
and passing her last examination for graduation on the very same
day when, in the morning she had appeared before the Sub-
Registrar for registration of an agreement for marriage, and, later,
she had proceeded and participated in her elopement.
6. Another significant feature is that PW4, the Sub-
Registrar Kazhakoottam has deposed that he had registered a
"marriage agreement" between the Appellant and the prosecutrix
on 19.4.2000 and that the document was in the handwriting of a
deed-writer named Mohana
Chandran Nair (PW5). In cross-examination he has stated that he
had informed the couple that the marriage would not be complete
on the registration of that agreement, which in his opinion had
been executed by them without any hesitation and
with their free consent....
77. In para 9 in decision of Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala
(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that if
the prosecutrix was aware that a legal marriage could not be
performed and, therefore, was content for the time being that an
agreement for marriage be executed. Secondly, the testimony of
PW4 and PW5 independently indicates that the prosecutrix had
been made aware by knowledgeable and independent persons that
no legally efficacious marriage had occurred between the couple.
78. In Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala (supra), Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been further pleased to hold that the present case is not
one where the Appellant has prevailed on the prosecutrix to have
sexual intercourse with him on the assurance that they were
legally wedded; the prosecutrix was discerning and intelligent
enough to know otherwise. The facts as have emerged are that the
couple were infatuated with each other and wanted to live
together in a relationship as close to

matrimony as the circumstances would permit.

79. In Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala (supra), no legal
marriage was solemnised between the prosecutrix and the
appellant and the appellant had not prevailed upon the
prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with him on the assurance
that they were legally wedded. However, the facts of the present
case are distinguishable from the facts of the case in Vinod Kumar
v. State of Kerala (supra) as in the present case the accused
had solemnised marriage with the prosecutrix on 15.11.2014
despite knowing that he is already married and the subsequent
mal Tiage has no sanctity in law and is void ab initio and that the
accused could not have lawfully married the prosecutrix.
80. In Bhupinder Singh v. U. T of Chandigarh (supra), accused
was already married and despite previous marriage, he married
the prosecutrix on 04.12.1990 and on 06.03.1994 the prosecutrix
came to know from Sh. Devinder Kumar Bansal and Sh. Vinod
Sharma, who were friends of the accused that the accused was
already man-ied with Ms. Gurinder Kaur and was having children
from the said wedlock and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased
to hold that 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 accused-appellant 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 accused-appellant
could not have lawfully married the complainant. A bare reading
of Clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 [PC makes this position clear.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been further pleased to hold that the
complainant has explained that she delivered a child immediately
after learning about the incident on 16.4.1994 and, therefore, was
not in a position to lodge the complaint earlier. According to her
she was totally traumatized on learning about the marriage of the
accused -appellant. Though the explanation is really not
satisfactory, but in view of the position in law that the accused
was really guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 [PC,
the delayed approach of the complainant cannot, in any event,
wash away the offence.
81. In the decision in Mahendra @ Manish v. State, Crl. Appeal No.
388/2016, decided on 30.05.2018, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
has referred to the decision in Bhupinder Singh v. U. T.
of Chandigarh and has been pleased to hold:
1. Mahendra (the appellant in Crl Appeal
388/2016) has, vide the impugned judgment, dated 24th February,
2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter
referred to as "the learned ASJ), been found guilty of having
committed the offences contemplated by Sections 493, 495 and
375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the
IPC which cover "cohabitation, caused by a man deceitfully
inducing a belief of lawful marriage , "the same offence with
concealment of the former marriage from the person with whom
the subsequent marriage is contracted", and 'rape ", respectively.
Resultantly, the learned ASJ has convicted and
punished Mahendra under Sections 376, 493 and 495 of the IPC and
has, vide separate order on sentence, dated 26th February, 2016,
sentenced Mahendra to suffer (i) for the offence punishable under
Section 376, rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of 5 lakhs,
and default simple imprisonment for 2 years, and (ii) for
the Qffences punishable under Sections 493 and 495 of the [PC, to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of
Rs. 1 lakh, with default simple imprisonment for one year in each
case. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Mahendra has been extended the benefit of Section 428 of the
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Cr.P. C").
82. In the decision in Mahendra @ Manish v. State (supra), the
Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to hold:
28. The most - indeed, the only - definitive authority, regarding
the applicability of clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 (2) of the [PC,
in a case such as this, it is, undoubtedly Bhupender Singh (supra),
authored by Arijit Pasayat, J., for himself and P. Sathasivam, J.
The facts, in that case, are broadly similar to those obtaining
in the present......
30.Section 375 "Fourthly" has, therefore, two essential
ingredients, i.e. (i) that the prosecutrix should not be lawfully
married to the accused and (ii) that the prosecutrix should,
however, believe herself to be lawfully married to the accused,
resulting in her giving consent for sexual intercourse. It is
important to highlight, here, that, as held in Bhupender Singh
(supra), knowledge, by the second wife (we will for the sake of
convenience refer to her thus, though the second marriage was
void), of the subsisting first marriage, is not a sine qua non, for
clause "Fourthly " to apply.
31. Two questions, therefore, would arise in the present case,
i.e.
i.whether the prosecutrix 'M' was lawfully married
to Mahendra and,
ii.if not, whether she consented to sexual relations
with Mahendra because she believed herself to be lawfully married
to him.
41.... No attempt, far less effort, has been made to discharge this
onus; consequently, the inevitable conclusion is that the
marital relationship between Vijeta and Mahendra stands proved
by the recital, in the Sale Deed Ex. PW- 14/D, to the said effect.
43. Per corollary, the marriage, between Mahendra and 'M' was
void; Mahendra could not, therefore, be regarded as the
"husband", in law, of 'M'. The first ingredient of clause "Fourthly ",
in Section 375 of the IPC, therefore, stood satisfied.
44. The second ingredient, also required to be simultaneously
satisfied before clause "Fourthly" could kick in with full force,
would be whether consent, to sexual intercourse with Mahendra,
was granted, by 'M', because she believed herself to be lawfully
married to him.
45. That this requirement, of clause "Fourthly" in Section 375 of
the [PC, stands satisfied, is apparent from the fact that sexual
relations, between 'M' and Mahendra commenced only