NUTAN BAGE vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:13531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 507 of 2008
……
[Against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.04.2008
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I,
Gumla in Sessions Trial Case No.306 of 2006]
……
Nutan Bage son of Junul Bage, resident of village Takarma Hata,
P.S. Basia district Gumla … Appellant

Versus
The State of Jharkhand
Respondent
…
……
For the Appellant : Mr. Shashikant Ojha, Adv.
Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P.
……
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
……
JUDGMENT
Dated- 06.05.2026

1. Heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Shashikant
Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Gautam
Rakesh, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment
of conviction and sentence dated 04.04.2008 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I,
Gumla in Sessions Trial Case No. 306 of 2006, whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 507 of 2008 Page | 1

2026:JHHC:13531
under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for three years along

with fine of Rs.5000/-.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as emerging
from the written report of the victim dated 10.06.2006 is that
the accused Nutan Bage on the false assurance and promise
of marriage, established physical relationship with the victim
in the month of June 2004 and continued to subject her to
sexual intercourse on such inducement for about two years. It
is alleged that as a consequence thereof, the victim became
pregnant and ultimately gave birth to a female child on
07.04.2006. The prosecutrix asserting the accused to be the
father of the child, born out of the said relationship. It further
transpires that repeated village panchayats were convened on
04.03.2006, 15.03.2006 and 27.03.2006 with a view to settle the
dispute, but the accused failed to appear therein. In such
circumstances, the victim alleged that the accused had
deceitfully established physical relations with her under the
pretext of marriage and thereby committed the offence
alleged against him.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 507 of 2008 Page | 2

2026:JHHC:13531
On the basis of above written report of the informant,
Basia P.S. Case No. 62 of 2006 was registered for the offence
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the
accused appellant.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the accused appellant for the aforesaid
offence. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and
subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions where Sessions Trial Case No. 306 of 2006 was
registered. Charge was framed against accused appellant
under Section 376 of the I.P.C. on 02.02.2007 which was read
over and explained to him, to which he denied and claimed
to be tried.
5. In the course of trial, altogether six witnesses were
examined and several documentary evidence were also
adduced by the prosecution.
6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence
has been adduced by the defence.
7. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order
has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 507 of 2008 Page | 3

2026:JHHC:13531
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was charged for the offence under Section 376 of
the I.P.C. while the learned Trial Court after evaluating the
evidence of the victim as well as other materials available on
record acquitted the appellant from the aforesaid charge but
has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence
under Section 493 of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that no
ingredient of offence under Section 493 of the I.P.C. is
attracted in this case. Therefore, conviction and sentence of
the appellant suffer from serious error of law. It is further
submitted that the victim in her evidence herself admitted
that just after lodging the case she got married with another
person and she had no complain with the appellant
(accused). She has also admitted that she is major one and
indulged in sexual activities on assurance of marriage by the
accused. She has also admitted in a Court question that she
compromised with the accused with the condition that both
will live their life in their own way and after the compromise
with the accused, she solemnized her marriage on 19.05.2007
with one Johan Suren. Therefore, the conviction and sentence
of the appellant for the offence under Section 493 of the I.P.C.
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 507 of 2008 Page | 4

2026:JHHC:13531
is absolutely illegal and liable to be set aside by allowing this
appeal.
9.
On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf
of the appellant and submitted that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any
interference in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed.
10.
I have gone through the record of the case along with
the impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions
raised on behalf of both side.
11. It appears that prosecutrix was indulged in sexual
activities initially on the offer of marriage advanced by the
present appellant in the month of June 2004. The said
relationship continued over two years and in the meantime,
the victim who was a major lady became pregnant and also
delivered a child thereafter, Panchayati was also convened
but of no result and marriage could not be materialized
between informant and the present appellant, thereafter, this
case was instituted. In the course of trial, the victim was
examined as P.W.2 and has admitted that there was
consensual sexual relationship for a long period of two years
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 507 of 2008 Page | 5

2026:JHHC:13531
with the accused, however, on assurance of marriage.
Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect, the learned Trial Court
has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 376
of the I.P.C. The learned Trial Court proceeded under Section
493 of the I.P.C. observing at para 20 that " the essence of offence
under Section 493 of I.P.C. is that while a woman is not in reality
the wife of the accused, it must be shown that accused deliberately
caused the deception so as to induce a belief in the mind of the
woman that she is or has become his wife and in pursuance of that
deception he induced her for which she agreed to cohabit with him
or to have sexual intercourse with said person. " In this context,
the relevant provision of Section 493 of the I.P.C. is extracted
as under :-
"493. Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully
inducing a belief of lawful marriage. – 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. "

12. A plain reading of above section goes to show that in
order to constitute an offence under this Section it has to be
demonstrated that a man has deceitfully caused any woman,
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 507 of 2008 Page | 6

2026:JHHC:13531
who is not lawfully married to him, to believe that she is
lawfully married wife and thereby to cohabit with him. In
other words, the accused must induce a woman, not lawfully
married to him to believe that she is married to him and as a
result of such misrepresentation, woman should believe that
she was lawfully married to the man and thus there should
be cohabitation or sexual intercourse.
13. Ram Chandra Bhagat v. State of
In the case of
Jharkhand, (2013) 1 SCC 562 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed as under :-
"
7. … Upon perusal of Section 493 IPC, to establish
that a person has committed an offence under the said
section, it must be established that a person had
deceitfully induced a belief to a woman, who is not
lawfully married to him, that she is a lawfully married
wife of that person and thereupon she should cohabit or
should have had sexual intercourse with that person.
Looking at the aforestated section, it is clear that the
accused must induce a woman, who is not lawfully
married to him, to believe that he is married to her and
as a result of the aforestated representation, the woman
should believe that she was lawfully married to him and
there should be cohabitation or sexual intercourse as a
result of the deception. "

14. Keeping in view the ratio of above decisions, it
transpires that if a woman is induced to change her status
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 507 of 2008 Page | 7

2026:JHHC:13531
from that of an unmarried to that of a married woman with
all the duties and obligations pertaining to the changed
relationship and that result is accomplished by deceit, such
woman within the law can be said to have been deceived and
the offence under Section 493 I.P.C. is brought home.
In the instant case, the factual aspects as averred by the
victim during trial and also as depicted in the F.I.R. clearly
shows that they have not changed their status to be as
husband and wife and there was no reasonable belief to the
complainant or victim that she has been married with the
accused appellant rather she was insisting upon
solemnization of marriage even Panchayati was also
convened but no fruitful result yield. Therefore, in my
considered view, the ingredients of offence under Section 493
of the I.P.C. is also not available in this case and the
conviction of the appellant for the said offence is absolutely
illegal and unwarranted. Accordingly, impugned judgment
and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is
hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed .
15. The appellant is on provisional bail which was later on
confirmed by this High Court vide order dated 01.05.2008,
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 507 of 2008 Page | 8

2026:JHHC:13531
therefore, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and
the sureties are also discharged.
16.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
17. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court
record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for

information and needful.


(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)



Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 06/05/2026
Sachin / NAFR
Uploaded On: 08/05/2026
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 507 of 2008 Page | 9