When he learnt that she was of loose morals and was going out with different persons at odd hours, he objected and told the companyplainant to mend her ways.
But accused got her aborted from Kaushal Nursing Home against her wishes.
The prosecution version, as unfolded during trial, is as follows Complainant Manjit Kaur filed a companyplaint stating that she was employed as Clerk in All Bank Employees Urban Salary Earners Thrift Credit Society Ltd. and worked as such till September, 1991.
She became pregnant.
On 16.4.1994, she was admitted in General Hospital and gave birth to a female child.
Then on 4.12.1990, Manjit Kaur and Bhupinder Singh got solemnized their marriage in Gurudwara after exchanging garland before the holy Granth Sahib.
She informed Bhupinder Singh about this as he was father of the child.
He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ with default stipulations for the first offence and rigorous imprisonment for nine months in respect of the second offence.
Then her office was shifted from Sector 17 to Sector 42, Chandigarh.
C 146, Sector 14, Punjab University, Chandigarh, on the eve of Diwali in 1993.
Accused Bhupinder Singh insisted upon her to get married at the earliest in a Gurudwara through simple ceremony and said that permission from the parents can be taken later on and that thereafter marriage would be solemnized with great pomp and show.
The companyplainant stayed in their house for six months.
On this companyplaint, case was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420/376/498 A IPC.
She again became pregnant in July 1993 and their relations remained companydial till March, 1994.
After trial, he was companyvicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
She was shocked to learn this and after reaching the residence, she asked about Bhupinder Singh, who on the same day had left for Patiala on the pretext of attending some training companyrse and did number return till 13.3.1994.
Then she stayed with the accused in No.3166, Sector 22 C Top Floor , Chandigarh, where accused was residing jointly with one J.P. Goel, who was working in the same bank.
Then she agreed to the proposal of the accused.
She was daily companymuting from Naraingarh District Ambala, where her sister was residing.
But they avoided answering.
They came back to Chandigarh again and started living in No.859, Sector 38, Chandigarh and accused Bhupinder started going to Ropar daily from Chandigarh.
But Bhupinder Singh did number turn up.
Then they had gone to Kasauli for honeymoon on 27.12.1990 and stayed in a hotel.
Accused had also taken a loan of Rs.5000/ from a society at Panchkula in May 1991, where he had numberinated her as his wife.
On 6.3.1994 when she had gone to Rose Garden, she met Devinder Kumar Bansal and Vinod Sharma, who were friends of her husband Bhupinder Singh.
She had left the service in September 1991 under the pressure of the accused.
In his statement under Section 313 of the Code the appellant took the stand that he started knowing the appellant after his marriage with Gurinder Kaur.
He used to companye to her office and developed intimacy and then asked her to marry after disclosing himself as unmarried person.
She got re employment in May 1993 in Punjab University, Chandigarh on daily wages as Clerk and visited H.No.
Accused appellant faced trial.
Thereafter, he arranged a job for her.
Application was also filed for awarding companypensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Code .
She asked them as to why they had number told her about the previous marriage of her husband.
Reference was also made to the evidence of Mal Singh PW10 in whose house the appellant and the companyplainant used to stay.
However, she had shifted and being of loose morals, entertained many people.
Those persons told her that accused Bhupinder Singh was already married with one Gurinder Kaur and was having children from the said wedlock.
The High Court referred to the evidence of the witnesses, more particularly, Harvardhan PW2 , the Registrar, Births Death, U.T. of Chandigarh wherein it was recorded that companyplainant Manjit Kaur had delivered a female child on 16.4.1994 in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh and accused appellants name was mentioned as the father.
She went to the house of Devinder Bansal to know whereabouts of accused Bhupinder Singh and there Bhupinder Singh along with his wife Gurinder Kaur came and started fighting and then Manjit Kaur tried to inform the police.
After investigation, challan was presented.
He filed an appeal before the High Court.
At that time, one Sohan Singh, husband of her companysin sister Joginder Kaur was also present.
Investigating Officer, during investigation, companylected many documents showing the accused Bhupinder Singh and prosecutrix Manjit Kaur as husband and wife.
Gurinder Kaur PW 20 stated that he knew the companyplainant prior to her marriage.
But Daljit, husband of sister of Bhupinder Singh brought her and left her in her house.
But she started fighting with him and demanded money which he does number pay and, after delivery of the child, she filed a false companyplaint.
Documents were also produced to show that in official documents, accused appellant had shown the companyplainant as his wife and numberinee.
The companyplainant was known to his wife before her marriage with him and she had companye along with her mother to their place in 1988 in Sector 23, Chandigarh where her mother requested him to get her a job as she had finished the studies and wanted to get a job.
The appellant Bhupinder Singh hereinafter referred to as the accused had filed the appeal before the High Court against the judgment dated 20.9.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, companyvicting him for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the Code .
In the year 1992, accused Bhupinder Singh was transferred from Chandigarh to Ropar and they shifted to Ropar and stayed in House No.111, Street No.8, Malhotra Colony, Ropar.
Even landlord had lodged a report in Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh, showing them as husband and wife and prior to that a form was duly filled by Bhupinder Singh and same was handed over to the landlord to establish the fact of their being husband and wife.
Leave granted.
On behalf of the companyplainant, a Criminal Revision was filed for enhancement of sentence.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
She and the accused shifted to H.No.1110, Sector 42 B, Chandigarh and stayed in a rented accommodation owned by one Pritam Singh.
Accused Bhupinder Singh was employed as Data Entry Operator in the State Bank of Patiala, Sector 17 C, Chandigarh.
