Criminal appeal challenging convictions arising from a deceitful bigamous marriage and sexual intercourse obtained by concealment of the accused's existing marriage. The court re-appreciated the evidence, upheld the trial court's findings against all four accused, and dismissed the appeals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
% Judgment Reserved on: 09.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 12.02.2026
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 1 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 2 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 16:29:16
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 3 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 4 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
persons were examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 5 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 6 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
(See Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3)KHC 89 : 2009 SCC
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 7 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
persons and Exhibits DW2/A and Mark DA/X were marked in support of the defence case.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 8 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 9 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.845/2017 within 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 10 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 11 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 12 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 13 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 14 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 15 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 16 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 17 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 18 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 19 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 20 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 16:29:16
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,
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 21 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 22 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 23 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 24 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 25 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 16:29:16
examination. He examined the exhibits biologically and gave his report, i.e., Exhibit PW9/A FSL.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 26 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 27 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 16:29:16
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
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 28 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
IPC further requires proof that such second marriage was contracted by concealment of the former marriage from the person
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 29 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 30 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 31 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
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
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 32 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 33 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 34 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 35 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 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.
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 36 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 16:29:16
The cumulative effect of their conduct unmistakably points towards a shared intention and design.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA (JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 12, 2026/RN
CRL.A. 845/2017 & connected matters
Page 37 of 37
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Da te:1 6.02.2026 16:29:16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of A1 under Sections 494, 495, 496 and 376 IPC for a fraudulent second marriage is sustainable.
Whether conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was proved against A2, A3 and A4 in the offence under Section 376 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Moidu K. vs. State of KeralaReferred¶7
Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3)KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888 · Who else cites this
Bani Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P.Relied on¶10
Bani Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720 · Who else cites this
Anurag Soni Vs. State of ChhattisgarhRelied on¶34
Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2019 SC 1857 · Who else cites this
8 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Bhagwan Devi
Vikramjeet
Manoj
State (NCT of Delhi)
Chandrasekharan Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
