Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources
Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study
Go to the blog

Statutory Interpretation and Section 493 IPC: Bhagat v. Jharkhand, Assignments of Interpreting and Translation

M.S. Ramaiah University of Applied SciencesInterpreting and Translation

interpretation of statutes interpretation of statutes

Typology: Assignments

2020/2021

Uploaded on 07/08/2021

anushka-shrivastava
anushka-shrivastava 🇮🇳

1 document

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
ANUSHKA SHRIVASTAVA
5th YEAR, BA.,LL.B.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUES
CASE ANALYSIS
RAM CHANDRA BHAGAT V. STATE OF JHARKHAND (2010) & RAM CHANDRA
BHAGAT V. STATE OF JHARKHAND (2012)
FACTS
1. The appellant, Ram Chandra Bhagat, had acquaintance with the complainant, Sunita Kumari,
and developed an intimate relationship with her.
2. They cohabited together for nine years and during that period, the complainant gave birth to
two children — a son and a daughter.
3. Thereafter, the allegation is that the appellant turned the complainant out of his house.
4. The complainant alleged that he had assured her that he would marry her and had executed an
agreement to that effect. This agreement was disputed by the appellant.
RELEVANT PROVISION
Section 493, Indian Penal Code: Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully
married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual
intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
ANALYSIS OF THE SERIES OF JUDGEMENTS
The trial court found Ram Chandra Bhagat guilty under S. 493, and his conviction was upheld by
the High Court of Jharkhand. Upon reaching the Supreme Court under an appeal, the view of the
presiding two-judge bench on the matter was divided.
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download Statutory Interpretation and Section 493 IPC: Bhagat v. Jharkhand and more Assignments Interpreting and Translation in PDF only on Docsity!

ANUSHKA SHRIVASTAVA

5 th^ YEAR, BA.,LL.B.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUES

CASE ANALYSIS

RAM CHANDRA BHAGAT V. STATE OF JHARKHAND (2010) & RAM CHANDRA

BHAGAT V. STATE OF JHARKHAND (2012)

FACTS

  1. The appellant, Ram Chandra Bhagat, had acquaintance with the complainant, Sunita Kumari, and developed an intimate relationship with her.
  2. They cohabited together for nine years and during that period, the complainant gave birth to two children — a son and a daughter.
  3. Thereafter, the allegation is that the appellant turned the complainant out of his house.
  4. The complainant alleged that he had assured her that he would marry her and had executed an agreement to that effect. This agreement was disputed by the appellant. RELEVANT PROVISION Section 493, Indian Penal Code: Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. ANALYSIS OF THE SERIES OF JUDGEMENTS The trial court found Ram Chandra Bhagat guilty under S. 493, and his conviction was upheld by the High Court of Jharkhand. Upon reaching the Supreme Court under an appeal, the view of the presiding two-judge bench on the matter was divided.

Justice Katju opined how law and morality must be separated. According to him, the actions of the man, though immoral, could not attract the application of S. 493, as the ingredients of the same were not satisfied. Since the allegation of the complainant was that the appellant had assured her that he would marry her, it was obvious that she was not under any belief that she was already married to him. Moreover, there was no allegation that the appellant deceived the complainant into believing that they were lawfully married. A criminal statute has to be construed strictly. Unless all its ingredients are satisfied the person cannot be punished, otherwise it would lead to a violation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. Justice Misra, on the other hand, was of the opinion that the acts of the appellant were directly hit by S. 493. According to her, the three ingredients necessary to be established for bringing home the offence under this section are:

  1. The accused practiced deception;
  2. Such deceit was to induce a woman (complainant) to believe that she was lawfully married to him; and,
  3. There was cohabitation or sexual intercourse as a result of the deception. In the present case, the appellant had executed an agreement for marriage certificate after a year of cohabiting with the complainant, wherein he admitted that he was living a normal family life as a married couple with the complainant. Several voter lists of the electoral ballots showed her status as “wife” of the accused. Moreover, as per custom of their Oraon community, if a young man lived with a young girl in his house for a long period, she was deemed to be his wife which was recognised as marriage. By taking into account all of this oral and documentary evidence on record, the ingredients under S. 493 could be well established and the offence under the said section can clearly be made out against the appellant. Justice Misra observed that interpreting this section to mean that marriage should have been performed by customary rituals or in similar manner only, in order to establish 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