CASE NAME	Bhupinder Singh v. UT of Chandigarh, (2008) 8 SCC 531
CITATION	2008 AIR SCW 4850, 2008 (3) AIR JHAR R 603, AIR 2009 SC (SUPP) 526, (2008) 10 SCALE 3
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Arijit pasayat
APPELLANT	Bhupinder Singh
RESPONDENT	UT of Chandigarh
DECIDED ON	10th July 2008

INTRODUCTION

In Bhupinder Singh vs. U.T. Chandigarh, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of consent in the context of a marriage conducted under false pretenses. The complainant, Manjit Kaur, claimed that the accused, Bhupinder Singh, portrayed himself as single and convinced her to marry him. They lived together as husband and wife, and during that period, Manjit Kaur became pregnant and had an abortion against her will. The romance soured when Manjit Kaur found Bhupinder Singh was already married to another lady, prompting her to file a complaint against him. The Supreme Court considered whether Manjit Kaur's consent was invalidated due to Bhupinder Singh's deception. The Court cited its prior decision in Uday vs. the State of Karnataka, which addressed the concept of consent under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court underlined that a pledge to marry without more does not inherently invalidate consent. However, if it is shown that the accused had no intention of marrying from the start and that the commitment was fake, the victim's consent will be invalid. In this case, the Court determined that Bhupinder Singh misrepresented his marital status to Manjit Kaur, leading her to assume he was single. This misstatement was held to have vitiated her consent, rendering the sexual encounter non-consensual and constituting rape under Section 375 of the IPC. The Court found that Bhupinder Singh's actions were an offense under the relevant provisions of the IPC and maintained his conviction. This case emphasizes the need of honest representation in relationships, as well as the legal repercussions of deception in matters of consent.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Manjit Kaur filed a complaint against the accused, Bhupinder Singh, charging him with defrauding (Section 420 IPC), rape (Section 376 IPC), and cruelty (Section 498-A IPC). Manjit Kaur worked as a clerk for the All Bank Employees Urban Salary Earners Thrift Credit Society Ltd. and commuted every day from Naraingarh, District Ambala, to Chandigarh. The accused, Bhupinder Singh, worked as a Data Entry Operator at the State Bank of Patiala in Chandigarh's Sector 17-C. Over time, the accused became intimate with Manjit Kaur and persuaded her to marry him despite the fact that he was already married. Manjit Kaur and Bhupinder Singh married on December 4, 1990, at a Gurudwara in Chandigarh, with garlands exchanged in front of the sacred Granth Sahib. They then lived together in several locations, including Chandigarh, Kasauli for their honeymoon, and later Ropar. During this time, the accused treated her as his wife, even putting her name on numerous documents, such as a loan application. However, in March 1994, Manjit Kaur realized that Bhupinder Singh had previously married another woman, Gurinder Kaur, and had children from that marriage. Manjit Kaur was surprised and questioned the culprit, who had departed for Patiala under the guise of attending a training course and had not returned until later. She eventually gave birth to a kid, but Bhupinder Singh did not acknowledge or support her. Manjit Kaur made a complaint, and following an inquiry, a case was opened under Sections 420 (cheating), 376 (rape), and 498-A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code. The inquiry includes gathering documentation identifying the accused and the complainant as husband and wife. The accused stood trial and was convicted. Following the conviction, the complainant filed a Criminal Revision for sentence augmentation and a Criminal Miscellaneous Application for Compensation under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the appellant was correctly convicted under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?
• Whether the High Court's award of Rs. 1,00,000 was justified?
• Is the penalty imposed appropriate considering the circumstances of the case?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant

• The accused-appellants attorney contended that Clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 IPC would be inapplicable if the complainant was aware that he was a married man and still consented to sexual intercourse. 
• It was also argued that the fact that the complainant was aware of his marital status is plainly proved by the allegations made in a suit filed by her seeking a declaration that she is the accused's wife. The sentence issued is said to be harsh. The complainant has deposited and then withdrawn the compensation ordered by the High Court. 

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent

• Learned counsel for the State said that this is a clear case in which Clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 IPC applies. The complainant's learned counsel argued that no sentence reduction was warranted in this case. 
• The High Court proceeded under the incorrect assumption that the complainant knew the accused was a married man. It was also claimed that the compensation provided was inadequate.

JUDGMENT

It is argued with significant vehemence that because the complainant was aware that he was married, Clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 IPC does not apply; the argument is manifestly without merit. Even though the complainant claims to have married the accused, which is supported by multiple documents, this does not enhance the situation for the accused-appellant. He was already married, so any future marriage has no legal legitimacy and is void ab initio. In any case, the accused-appellant could not legally marry the plaintiff. A cursory reading of Clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 IPC clarifies this position. The appellant's counsel points out that the complainant's alleged date of knowledge is 6.3.1994, yet the first information report was made on 19.9.1994. The complainant was unable to file a complaint earlier since she had given birth shortly after learning about the occurrence on 16.4.1994, preventing her from doing so. She claims that knowing about the accused-appellant's marriage left her completely disturbed. Though the answer is inadequate, given the legal position that the accused was indeed guilty of the conduct punishable under Section 376 IPC, the complainant's delayed approach cannot, in any event, wash away the offense.  The accused's appeal is dismissed. The High Court lowered the sentence in light of the case's unique circumstances, especially the complainant's knowledge of the accused's marital status. The High Court provided substantial and appropriate reasons for lessening the sentence and awarded Rs. 1,00,000/-compensation. The High Court's grounds are not flawed; hence, the complainant's appeal is dismissed without merit. Both appeals are, therefore, dismissed.

CONCLUSION

In Bhupinder Singh vs. U.T. Chandigarh, the appellant, Bhupinder Singh, was convicted under Sections 376 (rape) and 417 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, Manjit Kaur, claimed that Singh misrepresented his marital status, leading her to believe he was unmarried. They got married in a Gurudwara, and she later fell pregnant. She filed a complaint against Singh after realizing he was already married. The primary question was whether Singh's acts fell under Clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 IPC, which applies to cases in which a man has sexual relations with a woman when she believes he is her husband and he is aware she is not his wife. The High Court maintained the conviction, stating that, notwithstanding the complainant's knowledge of Singh's marital status, his conduct constituted rape under the specified clause. The court stressed that Singh's subsequent marriage to the plaintiff was void ab initio due to his existing marriage.  The High Court reduced Singh's sentence from seven years to three years of harsh imprisonment after taking into account the complainant's knowledge of his marital status. In addition, the court awarded the victim Rs. 1,00,000 in compensation, which must be paid within three months.  The High Court's decision in Bhupinder Singh vs. U.T. Chandigarh emphasizes the application of Clause "Fourthly" of Section 375 IPC in circumstances where a woman consents to sexual intercourse under the mistaken impression that the man is her husband, even if she is aware of his prior marriage. The court's approach demonstrates a complex knowledge of consent and the legal ramifications of misrepresentation in marital partnerships. The reduced term and compensation judgment reflect a fair assessment of the facts surrounding the case.