Amarjit Kaur vs Ranjit Singh Sarao

S.S. Rathor, J.

On 18.1.1983 Mrs. Amarjit Kaur filed a complaint under sections 494/109 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused on the bound that she was lawfully wedded to Ranjit Singh Sarao accused on 13.4.1973. The marriage was performed according to Sikh rites at Chandigarh. However, relations between the two got strained and she was turned out of the house by Ranjit Singh Sarao accused on 5.6.1979. Since then, they are living separately and an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance had been decided in her favour by the Court on 8.4.1982.

Further allegations in the complaint are that her husband Ranjit Singh during subsistence of the first marriage, performed second marriage with Mst Paramjit Kaur accused. Third coaccused Tajinder Pal singh was also instrumental and present at the time of performace of marriage of her husband with Paramjit Kaur on 21.1.1981. The wedding cards for the second marriage were widely circulated and were received by Harvinder Singh, Darshan Singh and Japal Singh. It has also been alleged in the complaint that this second marriage was soleminised at village Dera Bassi according to Sikh rites (Anand Karaj) and the `Anand Karaj'' ceremony was performed by the persons namely Mohinder Singh (Head Granthi) and Amar Singh (Granthi). It has also been alleged in the complaint that subsequent to the second marriage, a female child was born out of the said wedlock on 23.2.1982 in the Civil Hospital at Kharar and also a male child in August, 1983 and both these children are alive.

Complainant in preliminary evidence examined PW 2 Darshan Singh, PW 3 Rajinder Singh, PW 4 Parminder Singh after examining herself in the witness box as PW 1. On the basis of this evidence, the trial Court summoned the accused for the offence under section 494/109 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 14.12.1983. After summoning and appearance of the accused complainant examined PW 1 Jagpal Singh, PW 2 Darshan Singh, PW 4 Harbans Singh, SDC, PW 5 Amarjit Singh besides herself appearing also in the witness box as PW 3. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused and after framing of the charge and an opportunity being offered, they further crossexamined PW 1 Jagpal Singh, PW 2 Darshan Singh, PW 3 Amarjit Singh. On the closure of the complainant''s evidence, accused Paramjit Kaur and Tarinder Pal Singh (Coaccused Ranjit Singh having absconded was declared as Proclaimed Offender) when examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution version and pleaded innocence and false implication. No defence was led by the accused.

The trial Court after perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused primarily on the grounds: (i) that the complaint was lodged after an inordinate delay without any plausible explanation neither pleaded in the complaint nor so proved during the trial; (ii) that there is no credible evidence on record to prove the factum of second valid marriage. The discrepant oral statements of the prosecution witnesses examined on this point cannot be relied upon particularly when both the Granthis who performed the `Anand Karaj'' ceremony in the second marriage as alleged in the complaint, have not been produced in the Court.

Feeling aggrieved against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the complainant had filed the present appeal alongwith an application seeking leave to appeal. Leave was granted by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.10.1987. This is how the appeal has been placed before us now for final disposal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The complaint having been filed in Court on 18.11.1983, certainly suffers from inordinate and unexplained delay. Admittedly, the complainant was deserted by her husband accused Ranjit Singh Saraon on 5.6.1979. The complainant filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. on 8.4.1982 but this complaint filed in the Court is dated 18.11.1983. It is also alleged in the complaint that after the second marriage, out of the wedlock a female child was born on 23.2.1982 and then a male child was born in August, 1986 at Der Bassi and both the children are alive. In view of these facts it is not conceivable that the complainant never came to know of the alleged second marriage soon after the marriage was performed in January, 1981. Lodging of a delayed complaint under the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, has to be taken with seriousness by the Court.

Even if delay aspect of the matter is ignored, yet it is suffice to say that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that accused Ranjit Singh Sarao performed a lawful and legal second marriage with accused Paramijit Kaur as there is evidence on record that the said marriage was solemnized with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. The parties admittedly follow the Sikh Religion. A valid Marriage of a Sikh couple belonging to Sikh community is performed by an `Anand Karaj'' wherein ceremonies of four Lavans are made by the groom followed by the bride around the hola Guru Granth Sahib amidst the chanting of recitations of the hymns composed by the fourth Guru, Guru Ram Dass. These recitations and ceremonies are universally accepted mode of valid religious ceremonies among the followers of Sikh religion. Of course, in the complaint it is mentioned that marriage between the two accused was performed by a ceremony of `Anand Karaj''. This itself is not enough allegation to lodge a complaint. It ought to have been specifically mentioned about the ceremonies of Lavans made by the groom followed by the bride around the holy Guru Granth Sahib amidst the chanting of recitations of the hynins as mentioned above. Even otherwise during the trial, no ocular evidence has been adduced on this important aspect of the case. Discrepant and interested statements of some of the prosecution witnesses are meaningless and have to be ignored in view of the fact that none out of the two Granthis who performed the `Anand Karaj'' ceremony have been examined during the trial. No material has been placed on the file to show as to why the said two material witnesses have not been examined. There nonexamination would certainly couple the Court to draw on adverse inference against the complainant. The Granthis are God fearing and religious minded persons. They were the best witnesses to prove a valid `Anand Karaj''. They would have certainly divulged the truth in the Court of the various recitations and ceremonies performed by them as narrated above. As they have not been examined, it has to be presumed that the second marriage is not a legal marriage. Even though the parties may be living as husband and wife but from the said alleged marriage no penal consequences would flow. There is chain of authorities on his point dealing with the validity of marriage of a couple of different caste, creed and religion. The essence of all these judgments is one and one alone that the marriage should be ceremonised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of the parties thereto. However, in the case in hand ratio down in case reported as Resham Singh and another v. Kartar Singh and another, 1983(2) Recent Criminal Reports 497 : (1984) 86. PLR 78 is fully applicable to enable this Court to hold that the marriage in question is no marriage in the eye of law.

The trial Court has discussed the evidence of each and every prosecution witness in detail and assigned good and cogent reasons while discarding their evidence. The counsel for the complainant could not make our a case of misreading or non appreciation of material evidecne on record while rejecting the ocular version of the complainant and witnesses examined by her.

In view of the discussion made above, the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are just and legal. The order of acquittal passed by the trial Court calls for no interference by this Court. Hence the appeal filed by the complainant is ordered to be dismissed.

Appead dismissed.