Delhi High Court
Smt Bhagwan Devi & Anr vs State on 12 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 09.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 12.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 845/2017
SMT BHAGWAN DEVI & ANR .....Appellants
Through: None.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the
State with SI Karamveer, P.S.
Sultanpuri, Delhi.
Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta,
Advocate (DSLSA) with Ms. Mansi
Yadav, Mr. Sidharth Barua, Mr.
Shekhar Anand Gupta, Ms. Navneet
Kaur and Ms. Shivani Rampal,
Advocates.
Ms.Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate
(DHCLSC) with Ms. Pragya B.,
Advocate for victim
+ CRL.A. 884/2017
VIKRAMJEET .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Advocate
(Amicus Curiae)
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the
State with SI Karamveer, P.S.
Sultanpuri, Delhi.
Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
Advocate (DSLSA) with Ms. Mansi
Yadav, Mr. Sidharth Barua, Mr.
Shekhar Anand Gupta, Ms. Navneet
Kaur and Ms. Shivani Rampal,
Advocates.
Ms.Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate
(DHCLSC) with Ms. Pragya B.,
Advocate for victim
+ CRL.A. 7/2018
MANOJ .....Appellant
Through: None.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the
State with SI Karamveer, P.S.
Sultanpuri, Delhi.
Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta,
Advocate (DSLSA) with Ms. Mansi
Yadav, Mr. Sidharth Barua, Mr.
Shekhar Anand Gupta, Ms. Navneet
Kaur and Ms. Shivani Rampal,
Advocates.
Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate
(DHCLSC) with Ms. Pragya B.,
Advocate for victim
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
1. In these appeals filed under 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the appellants/accused
persons, 4 in number, in SC No. 100 of 2015 on the file of the
Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, North-West,
Rohini, Delhi, assail the judgment and order on sentence dated
12.07.2017. Vide the impugned judgment and order on sentence,
Accused no. 1 (A1) has been convicted and sentenced for the
offences punishable under Sections 494, 495, 496 and 376 read
with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
Accused no. 2, 3 and 4 (A2, A3 and A4) have been convicted and
sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC
read with Section 376 IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that in the year 2002, A1
enticed PW1, a minor girl aged 14 years, out of the lawful
guardianship of her parents and took her away, and thus committed
the offence of kidnapping. Pursuant to the same, Crime No.
47/2002, Sultan Puri Police Station, under Section 363 IPC was
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 3 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
registered at the instance of PW4, the father of PW1.While so, on
22.11.2006, A1 married PW1, making her believe that he was a
bachelor, despite the fact that he was already married. On
13.05.2007, A1 established physical relation with PW1, for which
all arrangements like renting room, were made by A2 to A4. On
14.05.2007, A1 and A4, on the pretext of the illness of PW1’s
father (PW4), left her at her parental home, at which time, A1
disclosed to her that he was already married and that it was in
order to save himself from the earlier case of kidnapping, the
marriage with PW1 had been solemnised. Thus, as per the
chargesheet/final report dated 07.06.2007, the accused persons are
alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections
494, 495, 496 and 376 read with Section 120B IPC.
3. Based on Exhibit PW1/A FIS of PW1, crime
no.919/2007 Sultan Puri Police Station, that is, Exhibit PW3/A
FIR, was registered by PW3, Head Constable. PW13, Sub-
Inspector, conducted investigation into the crime and on
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 4 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
completion of the same, submitted the chargesheet/final report
dated 07.06.2007 before the trial court, alleging the commission of
the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.
4. When the accused persons were produced before the
trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished
to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing
both sides, the trial court as per order dated 04.10.2010, framed a
Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495, 496
and 376 read with Section 120B IPC, which was read over and
explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were
examined and Exhibits PW1/A-C, PW1/DA-DB, PW1/D1-D8,
PW3/A-B, PW4/A, PW5/A, PW6/A, PW7/A, PW9/A, PW10/A,
PW10/C, PW12/A, PW13/A-H and Mark PW4/PX were marked in
support of the case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
persons were examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 5 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
respect to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them
in the evidence of the prosecution. All the accused persons denied
the said circumstances and maintained their innocence. A1 denied
that he had kidnapped PW1 in the year 2002 or that he had
performed any marriage with her. He denied having taken PW1 to
Arya Samaj Mandir or having signed any affidavit or photographs
in connection with the marriage. He further denied that PW1 was
taken to his parental house or that she resided with him in any
rented accommodation or that he had established physical relations
with her. He stated that the father of PW1 had taken money from
him and, when the proposal for marriage was not accepted by his
family members, he was falsely implicated in the present case.
6.1. A2, father of A1, denied that PW1 ever visited his
house or that he or his wife had accepted PW1 as the wife of A1.
He denied that he or A3 had requested PW1 to reside with A1 in
any rented accommodation or that he had any knowledge of any
marriage or cohabitation between A1 and PW1.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 6 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
6.2. A3, mother of A1, denied all the allegations attributed
to her. She denied that PW1 was brought to her house or that she
had requested PW1 to live with A1 in any rented accommodation.
She further denied having any knowledge of any marriage or
physical relationship between PW1 and A1.
6.3. A4, friend of A1 denied that he had any role in the
alleged offences. He denied that PW1 was brought to his house or
that he had arranged or facilitated any rented accommodation for
PW1 and A1 or that he had left PW1 at her parental home.
7. After questioning the accused persons under Section
313(1)(b) Cr.P.C, compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C was
mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under
Section 232 Cr.P.C is seen made by the trial court. However, non-
compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the
proceedings, unless omission to comply with the same is shown to
have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused
(See Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3)KHC 89 : 2009 SCC
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 7 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused persons have no case that
non-compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to
him.
8. DWs 1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the accused
persons and Exhibits DW2/A and Mark DA/X were marked in
support of the defence case.
9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
and after hearing both sides, the trial court vide the impugned
judgment and order on sentence dated 12.07.2017, held A1 guilty
of the offence punishable under Sections 494, 495, 496 and 376
read with Section 120B IPC; A2, A3 and A4 of the offence
punishable under Section 376IPC read with Section 120BIPC.
Accordingly, A1 has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 5 years each as well as fine of ₹25,000/- each, in
default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a period of
3 months each for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495
and 496 IPC as well as to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 8 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
years as well as fine of ₹50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to
simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence
punishable under Section 376 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.
A2, A3 and A4 have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 7 years as well as fine of ₹25,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months
for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC read with
Section 120B IPC. The sentences have been directed to run
concurrently. Aggrieved, the accused persons have preferred these
appeals.
10. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, there was
no representation for A1, A2 and A3. The learned Additional
Public Prosecutor submitted that A3, the mother of A1 and
appellant no.1 in CRL.A. 845/2017, is no more and that the death
has been verified. As the sentence passed by the trial court is a
composite sentence of substantive imprisonment and fine, on the
death of A3, only the substantive sentence of imprisonment will
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 9 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
abate and not the sentence of fine as contemplated under Section
394(2) Cr.P.C. However, the learned prosecutor draws my
attention to the order dated 28.08.2025, which read thus:
“1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants that appellant
no.1 Smt. Bhagwani Devi in Crl.Appeal No.845/2017 has since
expired, and in this regard he refers to the order dated 25.01.2023
wherein the same has been recorded and the said fact has been
verified by the IO and thus the appeal qua appellant Smt. Bhagwani
Devi stands abated.
2. In view of the above, let the amended memo of parties be filed in
Crl.Appeal No.845/2017within a week. …..”
As the appeals are of the year 2018, this Court was not
inclined to adjourn the case. Hence, relying on the decision of the
Apex Court in Bani Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC
720, this Court is proceeding to consider the connected appeals
filed by A1 and A2 on merits after going through the entire
materials on record. Heard the learned counsel for A4.
11. In the appeal memorandum filed by A1, it is alleged
that the trial court erred in holding A1 guilty despite the
prosecution having failed to prove the marriage alleged to have
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 10 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
been solemnized on 22.11.2006 or that any deceit was practiced
upon PW1. The alleged Arya Samaj marriage has not been proved
in accordance with law and that the evidence on record does not
establish that A1 induced PW1 by concealing his marital status. It
is further alleged that the conviction under Sections 494, 495, 496
and 376 IPC is unsustainable in the absence of proof of a valid
marriage, deception, or lack of consent.
11.1. The prosecution case suffers from grave and material
contradictions, particularly between the testimony of PW1 and
PW4, her father. The first complaint of PW4, i.e., Exhibit PW-4/A
itself demonstrates that PW1 was already aware of the marital
status of A1, thereby demolishing the foundation of the
prosecution case. There are serious inconsistencies regarding the
dates, manner, and circumstances of the alleged abandonment and
disclosure, rendering the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
unreliable and unsafe for sustaining a conviction.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 11 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
11.2. The trial court failed to appreciate that no evidence had
been led to establish any criminal conspiracy under Section 120B
IPC, either against A1 or the other accused. The conviction is
based on conjectures and surmises, without any proof of meeting
of minds or overt acts. The defence evidence, including the
testimony regarding the panchayat meeting held on 13.05.2007,
was not properly considered, and undue weight was given to the
uncorroborated version of PW1. On these grounds, it is alleged
that the conviction of A1 is liable to be set aside.
12. In the appeal memorandum filed by A2, it is alleged
that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him for the offence
punishable under Section 120B read with Section 376 IPC in the
complete absence of any evidence establishing conspiracy,
instigation, or active participation on his part. The appellant is the
father of A1 and that there is neither oral nor documentary
evidence to show any meeting of minds or overt act attributable to
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 12 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
him in relation to the alleged sexual offence. The conviction rests
purely on presumption and is unsustainable in law.
12.1. Even as per the prosecution case and the
testimony of PW1, the only allegation against A2 is that here
quested PW1 to reside with A1 in a rented accommodation instead
of living in the parental house. Such an allegation, even if taken at
face value, does not constitute abetment or conspiracy of the
offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The trial court
acquitted A2 of the charges under Sections 494, 495 and 496 IPC,
thereby acknowledging the absence of intention or knowledge on
his part, which equally negates any allegation of conspiracy.
13. It was submitted by the learned counsel for A4 that the
trial court gravely erred in convicting A4 in the absence of any
material to establish conspiracy or participation on his part. It was
contended that as per the prosecution case itself, the alleged
marriage between PW1 and A1 took place on 22.11.2006, after
which PW1 returned to her parental home. No evidence, oral or
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 13 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
documentary, has been adduced to show any meeting of minds or
overt act on the part of A4 in relation to the alleged offences. The
conviction of A4 with the aid of Section 120B IPC was, therefore,
submitted to be unsustainable.
13.1. It was further contended that the trial court failed to
appreciate the material contradictions between the testimony of
PW1 and her father (PW-4). Particular reliance was placed on the
complaint dated 14.05.2007 (Exhibit PW-4/A), wherein PW-4
stated that till 13.05.2007 PW1 was residing with him and that on
the night of 13.05.2007 she left the house on the asking of A1 and
his father and was thereafter taken to Sultan Puri Police Station,
from where A1 took her along with him. It was contended that the
said version is wholly inconsistent with the prosecution story
relating to the alleged incident of abandonment and does not
attribute any role to A4.
13.2. The learned counsel lastly submitted that there is a
serious inconsistency regarding the alleged disclosure by A1 of his
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 14 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
prior marriage. While PW-1 stated that such disclosure was made
on 14.05.2007, PW-4 stated that the disclosure was made on
15.05.2007. Despite this, Exhibit PW-4/A complaint was
admittedly lodged on 14.05.2007, i.e., prior to the alleged date of
knowledge as per PW-4. It was submitted that this contradiction
strikes at the root of the prosecution case and clearly establishes
that the appellant/A4 has been falsely implicated.
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the victim
submitted that PW1 has been consistent with regard to the identity
of A4. It was argued that both in the complaint as well as in her
testimony before the trial court, PW1 has consistently named A4,
and there is no variation or ambiguity in that regard.
15. The learned prosecutor supported the said submission
and contended that during his examination under Section 313
Cr.P.C., A4 did not offer any explanation to the incriminating
circumstances appearing against him, except stating that he was a
friend of A1. It was argued that it was incumbent upon A4, while
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 15 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
answering the questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to state that he
had no knowledge of the marital status of A1 or that he was
unaware that A1 was already married. The absence of such an
explanation, according to the learned APP, is a circumstance which
goes against A4.
16. Heard both sides and perused the records.
17. The only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed
against the appellants/accused persons by the trial court are
sustainable or not.
18. I shall briefly refer to the evidence relied on by the
prosecution in support of the case. The gist of the case of PW1 in
Ext. PW1/A FIS, is as follows:- In the month of January 2002, A1
had enticed and misled PW1 and taken her away, in relation to
which PW4, her father, had lodged an FIR alleging commission of
offence punishable under Section 363 IPC at Sultan Puri Police
Station, and criminal proceedings arising therefrom were pending
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 16 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
before the competent court. In the said incident, after about a
week, A1 had brought her back to her parental home and thereafter
met her repeatedly, telling her that she should marry him as it had
become known to everyone that she had gone away with him,
assuring her that he was ready to marry her but insisting that she
should withdraw the pending criminal case against him. On
22.11.2006, A1 took her to a temple and married her by
representing that he was unmarried, which representation she
believed to be true. Thereafter, on 13.05.2007, A1 took her from
her parental house, at which time A2 had informed her that a room
had been arranged for them at Aman Vihar. A1, A2, A3, and A4
then together took her to a room situated at AI-125, Aman Vihar,
Delhi, and left her there with A1.A1 established physical relations
with her. On the next day, A1 and A4 took her back to her parental
home at Rohini on the false pretext that PW4 was ill, after which
A1 disclosed that he was already married and further told her that
he had married her only to save himself from the criminal case
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 17 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
pending against him. PW1 has further stated that had she been
aware of the said fact, she would neither have married A1 nor
consented to any physical relationship with him, and further that
A1 to A4 had acted in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to
deceive her into marrying A1 in order to enable A1 to escape legal
consequences. PW1 further stated that A1, despite being already
married, had deliberately concealed the said fact, married her by
deception, and established physical relations with her without her
free and informed consent, and that her consent had been obtained
by fraud and misrepresentation. It is also stated that while she was
staying in the room at Aman Vihar, A1 had dishonestly taken away
the gold chain she was wearing, remarking, “What will you do
with this?”, and that the same had not been returned to her till date.
She accordingly prayed that strict legal action be taken against A1,
A2, A3, and A4 in accordance with law.
19. In the testimony of PW1 before the trial court, she has
reiterated her case as stated in the FIS. PW1 further deposed that
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 18 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
she tried to lodge a complaint on 15.05.2007, but the police
officials, disputing the jurisdiction and on one pretext or the other,
did not lodge the complaint and ultimately lodged the complaint on
07.06.2007. At the time of performing the marriage in Arya Samaj
Mandir on 22.11.2006, she was made to sign an affidavit
mentioning that she was unmarried at that time. She stood by her
case, in the cross examination also.
20. PW2, deposed that he knew A2 who was residing in C-
9, Sultan Puri for the last 10-12 years. In the year 2009, A1 and his
wife, whose name he does not know, came to him and on their
request he arranged a room for rent in the house of one Jaswant
Singh. The house in which a room was taken for A1 and his wife
was bearing No. A1/136, Aman Vihar belonged to Jaswant Singh
and the same was vacant. PW2 deposed that he does not know
anything more about the case and that A1 and his wife lived only
for about 15 days in that rented room and thereafter had left the
room and gone back to their house. At this juncture, the prosecutor
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 19 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
sought the permission of the trial court to “cross-examine” PW2 on
the ground that he was resiling from his previous statement made
to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Permission was granted by
the trial court and on further examination by the prosecutor, PW2
denied having stated to the police that A1 and his wife had come to
his house along with A2 and A3 asking for a room on rent. He
denied having stated that he had the key of the house bearing No.
A1/125 Aman Vihar which belonged to his friend and that he
arranged it on rent for A2. He denied having stated to the police
that on the next day he came to know that the girl who came along
with the son of A2 was not the latter’s wife or that some quarrel
had taken place between them or that he asked A1 to vacate the
premises or that on the next day A1 and his wife vacated the said
house. PW2, in his cross-examination admitted that in the year
2009, A1, his wife and their son lived in the rented
accommodation.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 20 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
21. PW3, Head Constable, deposed that on 07.06.2007,
while working as Duty Officer, he had registered FIR No. 919/07.
22. PW4, the father of PW1, deposed that in January 2002,
his daughter was kidnapped by A1, pursuant to which, Crime No.
47/02, PS Sultan Puri was registered for the offence punishable
under Section 363 IPC. The said case was pending. Even after the
registration of the said crime, A1 continued to meet PW1, his
daughter, and in the year 2006, A1 married PW1 at the Arya Samaj
Mandir, Bhukamp Pura clandestinely. After the marriage, though
PW1 insisted onA1 taking her along with him, the latter kept
postponing on the ground that as the earlier case was pending trial,
he would take PW1 after the said case was over.
22.1. PW4 further deposed that on 13.05.2007, A1, A2, A3
and A4 made a phone call to PW1 and told her that they were
standing at S-Block Mangolpuri, PW1 went to the said place and
met the accused persons. Thereafter, PW1 boarded a car and left
the place with A1. He immediately went to the police station,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 21 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
Sultan Puri for reporting the matter. But the police officials did not
lodge his complaint on that day. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. on
14.05.2007, he again went to the Sultan Puri Police Station and
gave a written complaint addressed to the SHO, S.P. Badli Police
Station, But still the police refused to lodge the report. On the next
day, he went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police
and gave a copy of the complaint vide Diary No. 5728. The copy
of the complaint has been marked as Exhibit PW4/A, showing
receipt by the SHO, Sultan Puri Police Station and the Diary No.
given by the office of the DCP. PW4 further deposed that on
15.05.2007 in the evening, A1 left PW1in front of the Jail
Complex, Rohini and so his daughter returned home. At the time
of leaving PW1, A1 told her that he had married PW1 in order to
save himself from the earlier case of kidnapping. He also told her
that he was already married. On the same day, he went to police
station along with PW1 for lodging the report but the police
officials refused to lodge his report. He went to the police station
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 22 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
many times from 15.05.2007 and in between he also visited the
office of DCP. At the intervention by the office of the DCP, his
report was ultimately lodged on 07.06.2007 and the statement of
PW1 was recorded. PW4 further deposed that his daughter told
him that A1 had raped her. In 2002, PW1 was aged about 13 years
only. According to PW4, his daughter was born in the year 1986,
but he could not recall the exact date and month.
22.2. PW4, in the cross-examination, denied that he was
related to A1.He deposed that he was unaware that the shop of A1
was situated at C-2 Market, Sultan Puri, Delhi. He denied visiting
the shop of A1. He denied having taken any loans from A1. He
denied meeting the parents of A1 with the proposal of A1’s
marriage with his daughter. He denied the suggestion that when
the parents of A1 declined his proposal, he had falsely implicated
A1 in the present case. According to PW4, A2 was a Head
Constable in Haryana Police, and so was quite influential in the
area. PW4 deposed that he was unaware as to whether on
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 23 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
19.01.2003 the marriage of A1 had taken place. On 13.05.2007,
when his daughter went along with A1, he was unaware that the
latter was a married man.
23. PW5, Constable, Police Station, Sultan Puri, deposed
that on 07.06.2007, she along with PW13 took PW1 to SGM
Hospital for her medical examination. After medical examination
of PW1, the doctor concerned had given two sealed pullandas and
a sample seal sealed with the seal of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial
Hospital, Govt. of NCT Delhi (SGMH) and the same was handed
over to the investigation officer (IO) who took the same vide
Exhibit PW5/A memo.
24. PW6, Dr. Manoj Dhingra, SGMH, MOIC, Mangolpuri,
Delhi, deposed that he is acquainted with the handwriting and
signatures of Dr. Sameer Pandit and Dr. Renu Gupta as he had
seen them signing and writing in the course of the discharge of
their official duties. Dr. Sameer Pandit and Dr. Renu Gupta had
since left the hospital and their present whereabouts were not
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 24 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
known. According to him, Exhibit PW6/A is the MLC of PW1
who was admitted in the hospital on 07.06.2007 at about 7:30 PM
and was examined by Dr. Sameer Pandit, who referred her to the
gynae department, where she was examined by Dr. Renu Gupta.
25. PW8, deposed that he was doing the work of panditai
at Ramroop Gali Shiv Mandir, Sabzi Mandi Ghanta Ghar, Delhi-
07 and that he had solemnized the marriage of PW1 and A1 on
22.11.2006. He was called by one advocate Lal to solemnize the
marriage of PW1 and A1 at Arya Samaj Mandir. He doesnot
maintain any record of the marriages solemnized by him.
According to PW8, Advocate Lal is no more. He identified A1 in
the box. In the cross-examination, PW8 deposed that he cannot
recall as to who had performed the Kanyadan ceremony.
26. PW9, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini,
Delhi, deposed that on 21.05.2008, two sealed parcels were
received in the office and the same were marked to him for
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 25 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
examination. He examined the exhibits biologically and gave his
report, i.e., Exhibit PW9/A FSL.
27. PW13, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on
07.10.2007, he had visited the house of Jai Singh at Sultan Puri,
who stated that his daughter Kamlesh had married A1 in the year
2003 and handed over photographs of the said marriage, which
have been marked as Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P8.
28. On behalf of the defence, DW1 to DW3 were
examined.DW1, deposed that on 13.05.2007 a meeting was
organized at Maharishi Balmiki Mandir, A-Block, Sultan Puri. In
the said meeting PW4 and PW1 as well as the family of Jai Singh
were called. According to DW1, PW1 was interfering in the lives
of A1 and his wife Kamlesh. In the meeting, they tried to convince
PW4 to solemnize the marriage of his daughter, with a suitable
groom. The settlement that was arrived at in the panchayat was
agreed to by PW4, who assured the panchayat that in future,
neither he, nor his daughter would trouble A1 and family. A
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 26 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
photocopy of the settlement/agreement has been marked as Exhibit
DW1/DX.
28.1. DW1, in his cross-examination, deposed that he does
not know the father of A1. He does not know who all are the
persons involved in the present crime. He does not know any of
the accused persons in this case. He was called by the committee
of the Mandir to attend the Panchayat. He only knows one person,
a member of the Committee of the Mandir, namely, Krishan
Kumar. The said Krishan Kumar is not brother of Kamlesh (the
first wife of A1). He denied the suggestion that Kamlesh’s brother
was his friend and therefore he was deposing falsely in favour of
the accused. He denied knowledge of any aspect of the preset case
or the marriage of A1 to PW1.
29. DW2, Head constable, S.P. Badli, Police Station,
produced the record of DD No. 50B dated 14.05.2007 of the said
station, which is the complaint made by PW4.A copy of the same
was marked as Exhibit DW2/A.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 27 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
30. DW3deposed that on 13.05.2007, a meeting was
organized at Maharishi Valmiki Mandir, A-Block, Sultan Puri. In
the said meeting PW1 and PW4 as well as Kamlesh, wife of A1,
and A2 had takenpart.DW3 deposed that he was unaware of the
relationship between A1 and PW1, but as A1 was already married
to Kamlesh, they convincedPW4 that he should marry off PW1,
his daughter to someone else and that they should not interfere in
the matrimonial life of A1 and Kamlesh. He admitted his signature
in Exhibit DW1/DX Panchayat Nama.
30.1. DW3, in his cross-examination, denied being related to
either A1 or Kamlesh. He admitted that PW4 had not signed
Exhibit DW1/DX Panchayat Nama. DW3 stated that he is unaware
of whether A1 on 22.11.2006 had married PW1 initially in Tis
Hazari Court and thereafter, on the same day solemnized the
marriage with PW1. He deposed that he was unaware as to
whether A1 had made any representation to PW1 that he was
unmarried. He does not know if A1 had informed PW1 to return to
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 28 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
her house after the marriage and that he would slowly obtain the
approval of his father for the marriage and accept her as his wife.
He does not know if A1 had kidnapped PW1 in the year 2002,
when the latter was 13 years of age or whether a crime was
registered regarding the same. DW3 identified PW1 and A1 in
Exhibit PW1/D1 to Exhibit PW1/D6photographs. DW3 deposed
that he does not know anything about this case except about the
decision of the Panchayat.
31. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it is
necessary to examine whether the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the essential ingredients of the offences for which the
appellants stand convicted. To bring home an offence under
Section 494 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove: (i) a valid
subsisting first marriage; and (ii) a second marriage performed
during the lifetime of the spouse of the first marriage. Section 495
IPC further requires proof that such second marriage was
contracted by concealment of the former marriage from the person
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 29 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
with whom the subsequent marriage was contracted. Section 496
IPC is attracted where the marriage is gone through fraudulently
without any intention of a lawful marriage. In the present case, the
subsistence of the first marriage of A1 with Kamlesh stands proved
through the testimony of PW13, who collected photographs and
recorded the statement of Jai Singh, the father of the first wife,
during investigation. The defence has not seriously disputed the
factum of the first marriage, and even the defence witnesses DW1
and DW3 have consistently deposed that A1 was already married
to Kamlesh prior to the alleged marriage with PW1.
32. As regards the second marriage dated 22.11.2006, PW1
has categorically deposed that A1 took her to Arya Samaj Mandir
and went through a marriage ceremony after representing himself
to be unmarried. Her testimony finds corroboration by PW8, the
priest, who solemnized the marriage and identified A1 in court.
The affidavits executed by PW1 and A1 (Exhibit PW1/B and
Exhibit PW1/C), as well as the marriage photographs (Exhibit
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 30 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
PW1/D1-D7), further lend assurance to the prosecution version.
The absence of proof of customary rites such as kanyadan does not
take the “marriage” out of the ambit of Sections 494, 495 and 496
IPC, particularly when the accused himself projected the ceremony
as a valid marriage to induce PW1. The materials on record clearly
establish that A1 knowingly concealed his prior subsisting
marriage from PW1 and induced her to go through the ceremony
on the false representation that he was unmarried. The subsequent
conduct of A1 in asking PW1 to return to her parental home and
later disclosing that the marriage was a sham undertaken only to
avoid the pending criminal case, unequivocally demonstrates that
the ceremony was gone through fraudulently and without intention
of a lawful marital relationship.
33. At this stage, the testimony of PW8, the priest who
solemnized the marriage, assumes significance. PW8 has
categorically deposed that he solemnized the marriage between
PW1 and A1 on 22.11.2006 at the Arya Samaj Mandir and has
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 31 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
identified A1 in court. Merely because PW8 did not maintain a
formal register of marriages or could not specify details such as the
performance of kanyadan, his testimony cannot be discarded. PW8
had no discernible motive to falsely implicate A1, and his evidence
lends independent corroboration to the version of PW1 that a
marriage ceremony was in fact performed.
34. The gravamen of the charge under Section 376 IPC is
that PW1’s consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by fraud and
deception. The consistent testimony of PW1 establishes that she
consented to cohabitation solely on the belief that she was the
legally wedded wife of A1. It has come on record that such belief
was induced by deliberate concealment of the subsisting marriage
of A1. The law is well settled that consent obtained on a
misconception of fact, particularly as to the marital status of the
accused, does not constitute valid consent in law. (See Anurag
Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2019 SC 1857). PW1 has
consistently stated that had she known about the prior marriage of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 32 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
A1, she would neither have gone through the marriage ceremony
nor consented to physical relations. Her testimony has remained
unshaken in cross-examination on this material aspect. The
medical and forensic evidence, though not determinative by itself,
supports the prosecution case regarding sexual intercourse. The
offence under Section 376 IPC thus stands proved against A1.
35. As regards criminal conspiracy under Section 120B
IPC, direct evidence of conspiracy is seldom available and the
same is required to be inferred from the conduct of the parties and
the surrounding circumstances. The evidence of PW1 shows that
A2 and A3, the parents of A1, actively participated in facilitating
the cohabitation by insisting that PW1 reside with A1 in a rented
accommodation instead of the parental home, despite being aware
of the subsisting first marriage. A4 accompanied A1 in taking
PW1 to the rented premises and in later leaving her at her parental
home. These acts are not isolated or innocuous; they form part of a
concerted design to enable A1 to exploit PW1 under the guise of a
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 33 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
false marriage. The collective conduct of A2, A3 and A4 before,
during and after the incident of 13.05.2007 clearly demonstrates a
meeting of minds with A1 to deceive PW1 and facilitate the
commission of the offence. The trial court has, therefore, rightly
invoked Section 120B IPC and held A2, A3 and A4 liable for the
offence under Section 376 IPC with the aid of conspiracy.
36. The principal contention of the appellants that the
alleged marriage has not been proved in accordance with law
cannot be sustained. For the purpose of offences under Sections
494, 495 and 496 IPC, what is material is the fact that the accused
went through a marriage ceremony and held it out as a valid
marriage to deceive the victim. The prosecution evidence,
particularly that of PW1 and PW8, sufficiently establishes this
fact. The alleged contradictions between the testimonies of PW1
and PW4 are minor and pertain to peripheral details such as exact
dates of disclosure and lodging of complaints. Such discrepancies
are natural in the testimony of witnesses recounting traumatic
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 34 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
events after a lapse of time and do not go to the root of the
prosecution case. On the core issue of deception, false marriage,
and subsequent sexual exploitation, the testimonies of PW1 and
PW4 are consistent and mutually corroborative.
37. The defence reliance on the alleged panchayat meeting
and ExhibitDW1/DX does not advance the case of the appellants.
None of the defence witnesses has personal knowledge of the
marriage between PW1 and A1 or the events that transpired at the
rented accommodation. Significantly, ExhibitDW1/DX does not
bear the signature of PW4, and even the defence witnesses
conceded ignorance of the material facts. The trial court has rightly
held that such evidence does not discredit the prosecution case.
The contention that no conspiracy has been proved against A2, A3
and A4 is equally untenable.
38. Insofar as A4 is concerned, the argument that there is
“no evidence” against him does not accord with the record.
Criminal conspiracy is rarely established by direct evidence and is
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 35 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
required to be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the
chain of circumstances. PW1 has specifically deposed that A4
accompanied A1 when she was taken to the rented accommodation
at Aman Vihar and that A4 was also present when she was later left
at her parental home. These acts are not neutral or accidental; they
are integral links in the sequence of events by which PW1 was
deceitfully taken away, made to cohabit with A1 under the false
belief of marriage, and thereafter abandoned. The presence and
participation of A4 at these critical junctures, coupled with his
admitted association with A1, clearly establish his role in
facilitating the offence. The contention that there is no evidence
against A4 ignores the settled principle that conspiracy can be
inferred from coordinated conduct before, during, and after the
commission of the offence. The trial court has, therefore, rightly
rejected the plea of A4 and held him liable with the aid of Section
120B IPC. The role attributed to him is not based on mere
relationship with A1 but on specific acts facilitating the offence.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 36 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16
The cumulative effect of their conduct unmistakably points
towards a shared intention and design.
39. In the light of overall re-appreciation of the evidence,
this Court finds no infirmity, perversity or illegality in the findings
recorded by the trial court. The prosecution has succeeded in
proving beyond reasonable doubt the offences punishable under
Sections 494, 495, 496 and 376 read with Section 120B IPC
against A1 and the offence punishable under Section 376 read with
Section 120B IPC against A2, A3 and A4.
40. The findings recorded by the trial court are based on
proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any
perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.
41. In the result, the appeal sans merit, is dismissed.
Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 12, 2026/RN
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters Page 37 of 37
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.02.2026
16:29:16