Devkaran S/O Kashiram Khati vs Vishnuprasad

Being aggrieved by judgment and order of acquittal from the charge under Section 494 of IPC dated 22.08.1995 delivered by the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Dewas in Criminal Case No.1181/1994, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

[2] The relevant facts sans unnecessary details are that daughter Savitrabai of the complainant Devkaran married to respondent Vishnuprasad in the

year 1983 by Hindu rites and rituals. She remained with Vishnuprasad for next two years. During this period Vishnuprasadill treated and harassed

her, therefore, she came back to her maternal home with her brother. Since then she is living with her father as Vishnuprasad asked her to come

back with some money otherwise he will opt a second marriage. Vishnuprasad entered into second marriage with one Sumitrabai daughter of

Laxmichand. Father of Savitrabai, Devkaran filed a complaint before the court alleging that Vishnuprasad entered into second marriage during

existence of his first marriage and hence committed offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 of IPC. Â

[3] Taking cognizance on the complaint, the learned Trial Court framed charge against respondent under Section 494 of IPC and proceeded to

record evidence of the complaint as the respondent abjured his guilt. Â

[4] The complainant produced as many as 10 witnesses namely Devkaran (PW-1) {complainant himself}, Savitrabai (PW-2) {legally wedded first

wife}, Ranchhodlal (PW-3), Shriram (PW-4), Ramprasad (PW-5), Prakash Dange (PW-6), LekhrajPohni (PW-7), Tulsiram (PW-8), Girish

Pandit (PW-9) and Madanlal (PW-10) to prove his allegation. The respondent has examined Santosh Bharadwaj as defence witness.

[5] After appreciation of the evidence produced by both the parties learned Trial Court was of the opinion that the charge leveled against the

respondent could not be established and acquitted him.

[6] The present appeal is preferred on the ground that the learned Trial Court acted illegally in acquitting the respondent on the ground that the

second marriage was not proved. It failed to appreciate that in no case second marriage can be said to be legal marriage if it takes place in the life

time of the earlier married spouse. The learned Trial Court has held that the respondent and Sumitrabai, his second wife gave birth to a child and

they lived as husband and wife and recognized as such in the society. In that case the learned Trial Court should have held that the opponent

entered into second marriage and he is guilty for committing offence of bigamy. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of

Tulsiram, who performed the ceremony of Saptpadi and Hawan ceremony according to Hindu religious rites. Learned Trial Court further failed to

appreciate the fact that second marriage ceremony is always performed secretly as it is an offence and everybody takes precaution to leave least

evidence of commission of an offence. It is further contended that documentary and oral evidence produced by the complainant is sufficient to hold

the respondent guilty for an offence of bigamy. The learned Trial Court has committed error in not appreciating the evidence led by the

complainant/appellant and acquitting the accused, therefore, intervention of this court is prayed for.Â

[7] Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Trial Court.

[8] I have considered rivalry contentions of the parties and have perused the record.

[9] First marriage of respondent Vishnuprasad with daughter of Devkaran, Savitribai is not much disputed by the respondent, therefore, the learned

Trial Court has rightly held this fact proved.

[10] Out of 10 witnesses examined by the complainant, Shriram (PW-4), Ramprasad (PW-5), Prakash Dange (PW-6) and LekhrajPohni (PW-7)

have not supported the case of the complainant/appellant.

[11] So far as second marriage is concerned, the complainant himself has come before this Court with two sets of evidence. First set is that the

respondent entered into marriage through Natra, a traditional method of marriage prevailing in the caste of the parties. Father/complainant Devkaran

(PW-1), Ramprasad (PW-5) and Madanlal (PW10) have come forward with this statement that Vishnuprasad brought Sumitrabai as his wife

through Natramethod. Madanlal has gone to the extent to state that he himself attended that Natra.

[12] As per the second set which is proved by Ranchhod (PW-3) and Tulsiram (PW-8), the second marriage of the respondent was solemnized by

adopting Gayatri Parivarmethod. Both the witnesses have narrated the rituals followed at the time of the marriage through the Gayatri

Parivarmethod.

[13] So far as Natra is concerned, statement of Devkaran and Ramprasad are the hearsay evidence as they have not attended that Natra, while

Madanlal, who claimed to be attended that Natra has stated that two rituals are compulsory to perform marriage through Natramethod and he has

admitted that out of that two rituals he witnessed only one i.e. later ritual which is to be performed at the house of the groom. He has admitted that

he does not know whether first ritual which is to be performed at the house of bride was performed or not?

[14] Marriage solemnized by Gayatri Parivarmethod isalso doubtful as Tulsiram, who performed rituals of Gayatri ParivarPaddhtihas stated that he

completed all rituals of this marriage. On the contrary, Santosh Bharadwaj (DW-1), who was Manager of GauatriShaktipeeth at the relevant point

of time has stated that he never authorized Tulsiram to perform marriage between respondent and Sumitrabai. He has stated that in Gayatri

Parivaronly two persons Mangilal Bhargava and Mohanlal Barve are authorized to perform rituals of marriage. TulsiramSoni was never authorized

by the Gayatri Parivar and he performs rituals of marriage on behalf of Gayatri Parivar. He has gone to the extent that he never sent Tulsiram to

perform rituals of marriage. Regarding receipts of marriage of Gayatri parivar produced and proved by Tulsiram, he has stated that these are

receipts of donation and not the receipts of fees of solemnization of marriage.

[15] Learned Trial Court has appreciated all these evidence in detail and reached on the conclusion that the complainant could not establish that

respondent Vishnuprasad any time solemnized second marriage during existence of first marriage with the daughter of Devkaran and acquitted the

accused from the charge.

[16] Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drew my attention towards paragraphs No.19 & 20 of the judgment in which the learned Trial

Court has considered the statement of Girish Pandit (PW-5), who has stated that in the Death & Birth Register of Municipal Corporation birth of

son of Sumitrabai and Vishnuprasad is mentioned. Further the learned Trial Court has considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for

the complainant that at that time the second marriage is used to perform secretly.

[17] After considering the judgment of the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court the learned Trial Court reached on the conclusion that even this

evidence is not sufficient to establish the offence to the legally permissible extent, I do not find any incorrectness or perversity in the findings of the

learned Trial Court. I am in consensus that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court. No ground for interference is made out. The appeal

has no merit, deserves to be and is dismissed hereby.