Marriage should have been performed by customary rituals or in
similar manner only in order to establish that a belief of marriage had been
induced, is bound to frustrate the very object and purpose of the provision of
section 493 I.P.C for which it has been incorporated in the Indian Penal Code
which is clearly to prevent the deceitful act of a man inducing the belief of a
lawful marriage for the purpose of cohabitation merely to satisfy his lust for
sexual pleasure.
In a matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ram
Chandra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand [(2010) 135SCC780];
The complainant got acquainted with the appellant herein and they
developed intimate relationship so much as that for nine years they
cohabited together and had two children - a son and a daughter. Thereafter, it
is alleged that the appellant turned the lady out of his house. The complainant
alleged that the appellant had given her assurance to marry her and even
executed an agreement to this effect on 4.6.1990. The appellant has disputed
this agreement.
In the above Judgment Justice Markandy Katju, observed
that:
It is true that the appellant has
not behaved like a gentleman. He lived with the complainant for nine years and
had two children by her, and hence as a decent person he should have married
her which he did not do. However, there is a difference between law and
morality, as already stated above. There are many things which are regarded by
society as immoral but which may not be illegal. If we say something is illegal
then we must point to some specific section of the Indian Penal Code or some other
statute which has been violated. Merely saying that the person has done
something improper will not necessarily make the act illegal.
In the present case it can be said that the appellant has not
behaved like a decent man but, in my opinion, Section493 IPC is not attracted.
A criminal statute has to be construed strictly. Unless all its
ingredients are satisfied the person cannot be punished, otherwise there will
be violation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. In the present case
since the ingredients of Section 493 are not satisfied the appellant
is entitled to acquittal.
In the above matter Justice Gyan Sudha Misra, observed
that:
The three ingredients necessary to
be established for bringing home the offence under Section493 IPC are:
i) the accused practiced deception;
ii) such deceit was to induce a
woman (complainant) to believe that she was lawfully married to him; and
iii) there was cohabitation or
sexual intercourse as a result of the deception.
The aforesaid three ingredients for the offence under Section
493 IPC in the light of the evidence recorded hereinbefore are clearly
fulfilled in the present case.
Section 493 IPC in my opinion do not presuppose a marriage
between the accused and the victim necessarily by following a ritual
or marriage by customary ceremony. What has been clearly laid down
and emphasized is that there should be an inducement of belief in the woman
that she is lawfully married to the accused/appellant and the inducement of
belief of a lawful marriage cannot be interpreted so as to mean or infer
that the marriage necessarily had to be in accordance with any custom
or ritual or under Special Marriage Act. If the evidence on record
indicate inducement of a belief in any manner in the woman which cannot
possibly be enlisted but from which it can reasonably be inferred by ordinary
prudence that she is a lawfully married wife of the man accused of an offence
under Section 493 IPC, the same will have to be treated as sufficient
material to bring home the guilt under Section493 IPC. Interpretation of
the Section in any other manner including an assertion that the marriage should
have been performed by customary rituals or in similar manner only in order to
establish that a belief of marriage had been induced, is bound to
frustrate the very object and purpose of the provision for which it has been
incorporated in the Indian Penal Code which is clearly to prevent the deceitful
act of a man inducing the belief of a lawful marriage for the
purpose of cohabitation merely to satisfy his lust for sexual
pleasure.
Since there was a difference of opinion between the Hon’ble
Judges, the appeal therefore was placed before the Hon’ble chief justice of
India for referring it for the appropriate bench.
