Mst. VEERA vs JONATHAN S — 2023 PCrLJ 421 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. VEERA VS JONATHAN S. 497(5)---Bail, cancellation of---Scope---Principles applicable for cancellation of bail are different from those for grant of bail---Bail is to be cancelled only if the bail granting order is patently perverse and is passed in violation of principles for grant of bail---Possibility of an alternate view is not sufficient to recall a bail. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 421 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case Mst. VEERA VS JONATHAN S. 493-a---Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage---Scope---Offence under S. 493-a, P.P.C. is of deceitfully causing a woman to believe that she was lawfully married to the accused, and for her to cohabit with him in that belief---Mens rea is deceit---Deceit entails dishonest trickery by one to make another believe that something is other than what it actually is---Penal Code made 'deceit' the mens rea for the much severer punishment under S. 493-a for a reason---Code did use its ordinary synonyms such as dishonesty---While 'dishonestly' and 'fraudulently' are defined terms in Chapter II of the P.P.C., did not define 'deceitfully'---although the Explanation to S. 415, P.P.C., reads that a 'dishonest concealment of facts is a deception', the description of deception as dishonest concealment of facts is confined to S. 415 by using the words 'within the meaning of this section'---Criminal court ought not slip into the easy trap of equating deceit with its ordinary synonyms---Rationale is obvious; dishonesty or fraudulent conduct deals with and is limited to the accused's conduct, but deceit takes into account the representee's conduct too---Representee cannot be said to be deceived where, regardless of the dishonest and fraudulent conduct of the representor, the representee has the knowledge of the truth or the circumstances showing that he knowingly turned a blind eye to the truth---Matter here was liability and not of the tort of deceit where imputed knowledge of the truth may not afford a defence---But for criminal liability, where the burden is beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution has to show that the representee was neither aware nor harboured any suspicion that could with ordinary diligence lead him to discover the truth---So while one may have acted fraudulently or dishonestly, he cannot be said to have deceived another where that other person either had the knowledge of the actual state of affairs or harboured a suspicion that would in the ordinary course lead that person to inquire further before letting oneself to believe in the representation made to him---Where the representee 'plays along', knowing that the representation is not genuine, the one playing along cannot, for the purposes of criminal liability of the representor, be said to have deceived. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 421 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case Mst. VEERA VS JONATHAN S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 493-A & 375---Bail, cancellation of---Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage---Rape---Scope---Complainant sought cancellation of bail granted to accused in an FIR wherein it was alleged that she was deceitfully cohabited by the accused by inducing a belief of lawful marriage---Complainant and accused knew each other for many years as choir singers and as members of the Youth Leadership Program in the Church---Complainant had attended and witnessed several marriage ceremonies at the Church, and that's why she mentioned in her FIR that pastoral prayer and blessing was necessary to solemnize the marriage---By the very contents of the FIR, it appeared, prima facie, that she turned a blind eye to her own knowledge of the pre-requisites of a valid marriage and, therefore, her stance in the FIR that she was deceived on the basis of the Nikahnama alone was open to doubt and entailed further inquiry---Benefit of doubt even at bail stage had to go to the accused---So far as allegation of rape under S. 375(iv), P.P.C. was concerned, the complainant had nowhere alleged that she believed the accused to be another person to whom she believed herself to be married, for that was an essential ingredient of the referred charge---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mst. VEERA vs JONATHAN S — 2023 PCrLJ 421 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ