Chetan Khanna vs ‘C’ & Anr. on 25 May, 2017

% Reserved on: 12th April, 2017
Decided on: 25th May, 2017

+ CRL.A. 1576/2013

CHETAN KHANNA ….. Appellant
Represented by: Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Adv.


‘C’ ANR. ….. Respondent
Represented by: None for R-1.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for State/


1. Convicted for offences punishable under Section 376/417 and 495 IPC
Chetan Khanna challenges the impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2013
and the order on sentence dated 17th August, 2013 directing him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 495 IPC, rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for
offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC.
2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Chetan Khanna submits
that there are glaring contradictions in the testimony and complaint of the
Prosecutrix. She stated in the complaint that she got to know about the
factum of prior marriage of Chetan Khanna through the photocopy of his
ration card, however, the ration card Ex.PW1/B finds no mention about his

Crl.A.1576/2013 Page 1 of 7
family. The marriage certificate has not been proved, thus the appellant
cannot be convicted for the offences as done by the learned Trial Court.
Version of the prosecutrix that the landlord asked for ID proof is not
supported by PW-3 the landlord.
3. Though this Court did not have the assistance from the counsel for the
prosecutrix, respondent No.1 herein as respondent No.1 did not appear
except once after service however learned APP for the State has ably assisted
this Court after going through the Trial Court record. Learned APP for the
State on the other hand contends that the impugned judgment and order on
sentence suffer from no illegality. Appellant has admitted that he was
already married when he married the prosecutrix. His defense is that the
prosecutrix and her family knew about the earlier marriage. It is immaterial
now the prosecutrix came to know about the appellant’s first marriage. The
offences alleged are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecutrix
having proved her marriage to the appellant during the subsistence of the
first marriage.
4. Facts

leading to filing of the present appeal are that a complaint Ex.
PW-1/C dated 16th March, 2009 was filed by the prosecutrix under Section
200 Cr. P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate wherein it was
stated that the prosecutrix was married to Chetan Khanna on 21st July, 2008
at Arya Samaj Mandir, 2164, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi. On the same night,
Chetan Khanna took the prosecutrix to a hotel in Karol Bagh where their
marriage was duly consummated. The rent of the room in the aforesaid hotel
was ₹2,800/- out of which ₹1,000/- was paid by Chetan Khanna and the
balance ₹1,800/- was paid by the prosecutrix. On 22nd July, 2008, Chetan
Khanna took her to a rented house in Patel Nagar monthly rent whereof was

Crl.A.1576/2013 Page 2 of 7
₹3,000/- per month and they started living there. On 25th July, 2008, he told
her that due to work, he would be coming home late so she can go to her
parental home and he would pick her up at night, however, he did not come.
On 30th July, 2008, again he did not come home and told her that there was
closing in the bank. On 2nd August, 2008, he told her that he was going to
Shimla on Bank tour and will return on 10 th August, 2008. After returning
from Shimla on 14th August, 2008, he told her that he was going to his
sister’s place at Kanpur for Raksha Bandhan. The mother of the prosecutrix
told Chetan Khanna to take the prosecutrix along with him, however, he
stated that first he will inform his sister about the marriage and then he will
take her. Thereafter, he used to come home at night and go back at 5:00
A.M.. The landlady of the tenanted premises asked for the ID proof for
preparing the rent agreement but he refused to give his identity proof and
asked her to give her ID proof. On 25th August, 2008, he visited the
prosecutrix at her office and told her that since he will be doing night duty,
so he will meet her next morning at her office only. He also told her to live at
her mother’s place for 10-15 days. On 10th September, 2008, he came to the
house of the prosecutrix’s mother. After eating dinner, they went to the
room and around 3:00 A.M., he left saying that he had some urgent work. On
11th September, 2008, he visited her office during the day and when she
asked him to leave his job so that they can live peacefully, he stated that he
will only leave his job if she will bear his expenses. She further stated that
whenever they used to have sexual intercourse, he used to force her to take
contraceptive pills so that she does not conceive a child. She used to have
intercourse with him under the impression that she was his legally wedded
wife. From 12th September, 2008 to 18th September, 2008, Chetan Khanna

Crl.A.1576/2013 Page 3 of 7
did not visit her, even at her office. On 19th September, 2008, when he came
to her office, she told him that if he does not have time to come home, he
should not come to her office also. When she was shifting from the tenanted
room to her parental home, she got a photocopy of the ration card of Chetan
Khanna and she was shocked to see that he was already married and had an
eight year old child. When she confronted him with this fact, he admitted it.
He also told her that he can only meet her in the morning but cannot live
with her anymore. Thereafter, he started threatening her that if she disclosed
it to anyone, he would kill her and her family members. On 20th October,
2008, she made a complaint to SHO PS Patel Nagar, however, no action was
taken. Two more complaints were sent, one to the Commissioner of Police
and another to DCP (Central), however, the police failed to take any action
against him. Hence, she filed the complaint.

5. Upon the receipt of the complaint, learned Metropolitan Magistrate
directed the prosecutrix to lead pre-summoning evidence and on the basis of
material on record, Chetan Khanna was summoned for offences punishable
under Sections 376/420 IPC vide order dated 16th September, 2009. The case
was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charge was framed for
offences punishable under Sections 376/417/495 IPC against Chetan Khanna
whereafter statements of four witnesses were recorded.

6. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 in Court wherein she deposed
in sync with the averments in the complaint filed by her under Section 200
Cr.P.C. She further stated that she is owner of a boutique situated at Karol
Bagh. She had taken a loan from DBS Chola Mandalam and Chetan Khetan
used to visit her to collect installments of the aforesaid loan. During those
visits, he became friendly with her and her family. He, in fact, offered a good

Crl.A.1576/2013 Page 4 of 7
match for her marriage to her mother, however, she did not like the boy so
she refused the proposal. He proposed himself to her mother and she agreed
to his proposal and then they got married. During her cross examination, she
stated that her marriage with Chetan Khanna was solemnized in the presence
of her father and one Purshottam Sharma, however, this fact was not
mentioned in her complaint. She further admitted that she had not mentioned
in her complaint that Chetan Khanna had assured her and her family
members that his parents have passed away and he had only one married
sister who lived in Kanpur.

7. PW-2 Purshottam Sharma deposed that on 21st July, 2008, he had
attended the marriage of the prosecutrix with Chetan Khanna at Arya Samaj
Mandir, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi. Father of the prosecutrix was also present
however no one was present from the side of Chetan Khanna. The marriage
certificate was also issued after solemnization of marriage. The copy of
marriage certificate Ex. PW-2/A bears his signature as a witness.

8. PW-3 Bhuvan Sharma deposed that in July, 2008, Chetan Khanna had
approached his mother to take one room in the property bearing No.29/38,
1st Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi on rent. The said premises was let
out to him at a monthly rent of ₹3,000/-. Chetan Khanna was living in the
said premises with the prosecutrix as husband and wife. They had vacated
the premises in the middle of September, 2008. Chetan Khanna did not
execute any rent agreement despite repeated requests.

9. PW-4 Deepak Shastri deposed that he was working as a Pandit in Arya
Samaj Mandir, 2164, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi for the last six years. He
produced the original affidavits of Chetan Khanna and the prosecutrix
furnished at the time of their marriage, photocopy of which were exhibited as

Crl.A.1576/2013 Page 5 of 7
Ex.PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B. On 21st July, 2008, he had solemnized the
marriage of Chetan Khanna with the prosecutrix as per Hindu rites and
customs. He had also issued the marriage certificate Ex.PW2/A wherein he
signed at point ‘A’.

10. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt that Chetan Khanna married the prosecutrix as per
Hindu rites and customs on 21st July, 2008. In respect of his earlier
subsisting marriage, the prosecution sought to prove the same by the
evidence of the prosecutrix who stated that she found one folder containing
photocopy of the ration card of the appellant containing details of his family
members including his wife and daughter. When this fact was put to the
appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, his explanation was that
the prosecutrix had taken out photocopy of his ration card from his bag
during one of his visits to her office for collecting the installment of loan and
that everyone including the prosecutrix had knowledge of his earlier
marriage and a daughter born from the said wedlock. Thus, the factum of
the earlier subsisting marriage when Chetan Khanna married the prosecutrix
on 21st July, 1998 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Yamuna Bazar , Delhi is not
denied or disputed. When Chetan Khanna married the prosecutrix, he
submitted an affidavit Ex.PW4/A wherein he claimed to be
unmarried/bachelor. Photocopy of the ration card has not been exhibited
during trial and is a marked document, thus cannot be read in evidence.

11. From the evidence led by the prosecution it has proved beyond
reasonable doubt the marriage performed by the appellant with the
prosecutrix claiming himself to be a bachelor, thereafter both of them living
as husband and wife and thus taking her consent for sexual intercourse on the

Crl.A.1576/2013 Page 6 of 7
claim that he was a lawfully married husband of the prosecutrix though he
had an earlier subsisting marriage. There is no illegality in the impugned
judgment of conviction convicting the appellant for offence punishable under
Sections 376/417 and 495 IPC.

12. I find no merit in the appeal. The judgment of conviction and the order
on sentence are upheld. Appeal is dismissed. The appellant will undergo the
remaining sentence.

13. Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for
updation of the Jail record.

14. TCR be returned.

MAY 25, 2017
‘v mittal’

Crl.A.1576/2013 Page 7 of 7

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *