SARUP CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 17th October, 1967 in Sessions Case No. 121 of 1966 by which he convicted SarupChand for an offence under section 494 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 44 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 1 years and acquitted both Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri of the offences under sections 420 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and acquitted Raj Kumari Suri of the offence under section 494 read with section 34 IPC with which they had been charged. Sarup Chand has filed an appeal against his conviction and the sentence passed against him and Janak Rani on the basis of whose complaint Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri had been prosecuted has filed the other appeal against their acquittal after having obtained special leave of this Court. Both these appeals shall be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The prosecution case against Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri is that Sarup Chand married Janak Rani on 28-4-1960 at Nawanshehr, District Jullundur, according to the Sanatani rites, that they lived as husband and wife both at Nawanshehr as well as at Delhi and that they had two children by this marriage. Raj Kumari Suri, who was working as a teacher in a school in Delhi, used to visit them and was aware of the fact that Janak Rani was the legally wedded wife of Sarup Chand. Sarup Chand developed illicit intimacy with Raj Kumari Suri and ultimately married her on August 13, 1964 and that the said marriage was solemnized through Arya Samaj. Sadar Bazar, Delhi, according to Vedic rites. This marriage was solemnized as a result of a fraud played by Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri on the Arya Samaj by making a misrepresentation that Sarup Chand as well as Raj Kumari Suri were not previously married. After this marriage with Raj Kumari Suri, Sarup Chand deserted Janak Rani and was living with his second wife Raj Kumari Suri. They were therefore, guilty of offences under section 420 and 494 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code .

(3.) The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in the trial Court. These witnesses may be classified in the categories, namely, -