Sonu Pujari vs Arjun Bissoyi

S. Acharya, J.—The Petitioner stands convicted u/s 498, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced thereunder to undergo R.I. for 3 months. The conviction of the Petitioner has been upheld by the appellate Court on the findings that Sanmati was the married wife of P.W. 1; that fact was known to the Petitioner; she at the relevant time was admittedly staying in the house of the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner, with the intention of having illicit intercourse with her, did not allow Sanmati to go back to the house of P.W. 1 in spite of approaches made to that effect. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have deposed that in the village Panchayat the Petitioner stated that he had married Sanmati by paying money and so he would not allow her to go back to the house of P.W. 1. The ceremonies constituting the second marriage of Sanmati with the Petitioner were not established in this case. But on the other above mentioned facts found by the Courts below on the evidence on record, the Petitioner has been convicted u/s 498, Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Y.S.R. Murty, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 498, Indian Penal Code cannot be upheld in view of the fact that the marriage of Sanmati with P.W. 1 was not established in this case, as details of the ceremonies constituting that marriage have not been proved in this case.

In this case P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have stated that Sanmati was married to P.W. 1 In accordance with caste custom at the parents house of Sanmati at Girliguda about 12 years prior to the institution of this case, and that two daughters were born to them out of that wedlock P.Ws. 1 and 2 have named the priest who solemnised the marriage and have staged that ''Hastagranthi'' as per the caste customs was performed in that marriage, thereby indicating possibly the most important essential of the marriage ceremony according to their caste custom. Their above evidence was not assailed in cross-Examination and no attempt was made in cross-examination to show that the said marriage was not performed according to caste custom applicable to P.W. 1 and Sanmati. As P.Ws. 1 and 2 asserted about the marriage of P.W. 1 with Sanmati in the aforesaid manner it was for the defence to elicit answers from them in cross-examination to show that the said marriage was not solemnised according to caste custom. Far from trying to assail that fact, the Petitioner, in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, in clear and categorical terms admitted that Sanmati was the married wife of P.W. 1. That admission IS admissible to evidence and can be taken into consideration against the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 21 and 58 of the Evidence Act. The above admission and the unassailed evidence of marriage adduced by the prosecution, as stated above, clearly establish that Sanmati was the legally married wife of P.W. 1.

Mr. Y.S.R. Murty could not cite any decision in support of his condition that the prosecution in a case u/s 498, Indian Penal Code must prove all the ceremonies constituting the legal marriage of the woman with another man and that evidence of marriage of the above nature and admission of the accused to that effect are of no avail or value. The decision Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Sureh Ohandra Ghosh AIR 1971 S.C. 1153 and some other decisions cited by Mr. Murty in support of his above submission are all in respect of cases of bigamy, and in those cases it has of course been held that in a prosecution for bigamy the second marriage with the accused has to be proved as a fact by adducing evidence that the necessary ceremonies had been performed, and that admission of that marriage by the accused would not alone be sufficient to convict him of an offence of bigamy. Those decisions are attuned that way as the main allegation against the accused in a case of bigamy is his or her 2nd marriage as prescribed u/s 494, Indian Penal Code and so the Courts insist on the proof of that fact to the bilt before holding the accused guilty of the graver offence u/s 494, Indian Penal Code. The test applied in those cases would not therefore apply to a case u/s 408, Indian Penal Code.

From all that has been stated above, in this case the prosecution does dot rely merely on the admission of the Petitioner that Sanmati was the married wife of P.W. 1; that fact has also been established independently by the evidence adduced by the prosecution as mentioned above. The fact that at the relevant time Sanmati was living in the house of the Petitioner has also been admitted by the Petitioner and is established on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. It is also established that the Petitioner did not allow Sanmati to go back to the house of P.W. 1 but kept her detained in his house on h is assertion that he had married her on payment of money. Though the said marriage has not been proved, on the evidence in record it is established beyond doubt that the Petitioner had kept or detained Sanmati in his house with the purpose and intent of having illicit intercourse with her. On the above facts, well established on the evidence on record, the offence u/s 498, Indian Penal Code, of which the Petitioner stands convicted is established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly his conviction for the said offence is well founded. I do not see any reason to interfere with the sentence passed by the appellate Court against the Petitioner. The revision is accordingly dismissed.