Udha Singh @ Udhapal Singh vs Mohinder Kaur

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu,

This judgment will also dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 5578M of 1986, Mohinder Kaur v. Udha Singh. Mohinder Kaur filed a complaint on 161979 against Udha Singh and Jagwant Kaur for an offence under Section 494/109 IPC. As per averments made in the complaint she was married to Udha Singh in March 1958 in village Nohra, Tehsil Nabha. The marriage was performed by Anand Karaj ceremony. Udha Singh and other members of his family did not treat her properly as they were not satisfied with the dowry given to her and also conveyed that she was not to their liking. After 11/2 years of the marriage she was given beating and was turned out of the house and since then she lived in the house of her parents at village Nohra. She learnt that Udha Singh contracted a second marriage with Jagwant Kaur in the month of October, 1968 at village Bhullarheri through Anand Karaj ceremony in the presence of Jag Singh son of Sadhu Singh and Amar Singh son of Niranjan Singh. Father of Jagwant Kaur, namely, Teja Singh was also present. She started residing with Udha Singh as his wife at Nabha and gave birth to three children out of this wedlock. At the time of her marriage Jagwant Kaur was aware that Udha Singh was already married to the complainant and that marriage was subsisting.

After recording preliminary evidence Udha Singh and Jagwant Kaur were summoned. Udha Singh was charged for an offence under Section 494 IPC and Jagwant Kaur for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 IPC. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

In his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC contention of Udha Singh was that he was falsely implicated in the case and in fact he was neither married to Mohinder Kaur nor he had contracted any marriage with Jagwant Kaur. Rather Mohinder Kaur was married to one Bishan Singh of Naudharani. She never resided with him as his wife. Jagwant Kaur accused stated that she was not married to Udha Singh nor she resided with him as his wife. Nine witnesses were examined in defence.

After perusing the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court found that charge against Jagwant Kaur was not proved and she was acquitted, but Udha Singh was held guilty for an offence under Section 494 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/. Aggrieved by this judgment dated 24121984 recorded by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, Udha Singh filed an appeal. Mohinder Kaur too was not satisfied with the quantum of sentence and she preferred a revision petition against the same judgment. Both the appeal as well as the revision petition were dismissed by Shri S. S. Chahal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide his judgment dated 1671986. It is this judgment which has been assailed by Udha Singh by way of this revision Petition. The other Criminal Misc. referred to above, was filed by Mohinder Kaur with a prayer that sentence awarded to Udha Singh may be enhanced.

I have heard Shri G. S. Doad, the learned counsel for Udha Singh revisionpetitioner and Shri G. S. Punia, the learned counsel for Mohinder Kaur and have also perused the record.

It was argued on behalf of the revisionpetitioner that there was absolutely no evidence on record to show that religious rites and ceremonies necessary to constitute Anand Karaj marriage amongst the parties were performed and Mohinder Kaur failed to prove that she was legally wedded wife of Udha Singh or Udha Singh solemnised a valid second marriage with Jagwant Kaur. No Granthi, who performed the marriage of Udha Singh with Mohinder Kaur or Udha Singh with Jagwant Kaur, was examined by the complainantrespondent. For proving her own marriage with Udha Singh, complainant made her own statement and examined some witnesses but none of them deposed about the essential ceremonies of marriage. The complainant herself stated that she was married to Udha Singh by Anand Karaj ceremony about 24 years back. To similar effect were the statements of Gurcharan Singh PW3, Chandan Singh PW4 and Bhagwan Singh PW5. Out of these witnesses, Gurcharan Singh and Chanan Singh belonged to the village of Udha Singh. They had not attended the marriage of Udha Singh and were not in a position to depose about the same. Even otherwise, they were not reliable witnesses having been involved in various sorts of litigation. One of the witnesses was only 13 years old at the time of the alleged marriage of Udha Singh with Mohinder Kaur and since Mohinder Kaur did not live long in the village of Udha Singh as per her own allegations the witness was not in a position to depose that she was the legally wedded wife of Udha Singh. The statements of all these witnesses suffered from serious infirmities for want of not disclosing the essential ceremonies performed at the time of solemnisation of marriage.

For proving second marriage of Udha Singh with Jagwant Kaur only two witnesses were examined i.e. Amar Singh and Jag Singh PW2. Both these witnesses belonged to village Bhullarheri which is the native village of Jagwant Kaur. They stated that Udha Singh was married to Jagwant Kaur by Anand Karaj ceremony. Amar Singh was married in village Nohra to which place Mohinder Kaur belonged. Out of these witnesses the statement of Jag Singh was discarded by the Courts below on the ground that he was not produced for further crossexamination after charge, so there remained only the statement of Amar Singh. He was confronted with his statement at the preliminary stage which was Ex. DA wherein he even did not state that any Anand Karaj ceremony was performed. Although this witness was married in the village of Mohinder Kaur he did not disclose to her brother about the alleged second marriage of Udha Singh till about 21/2 years before the recording of his statement,

There is no dispute that in order to hold a person guilty under Section 494 IPC proof of solemnisation of second marriage in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to the parties is a must and even an admission by an accused person that he contracted a second marriage is not enough. In the case of Kanwal Ram and others v. The Himachal Pradesh Administration, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 614, it was observed :

"In a bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact, that is to say, the essential ceremonies constituting it must be proved. Admission of marriage by the accused is not evidence of it for the purpose of proving marriage in an adultery or bigamy case.

In the case of Anand Karaj marriage certain ceremonies are essential which are to be proved in order to establish a valid marriage and the mere fact that the witnesses deposed that Anand Karaj was performed was not enough. Resham Singh and another v. Kartar Singh and others, 1983(2) RCR(Cri.) 497 : 1984 PLR 78 is an authority on this point wherein it was observed :

"Both the eyewitnesses had no where stated about the essential ceremonies of the marriage known as Anand Karaj. That marriage by Anand Karaj has essential ceremonies of four Lavans made by the groom followed by the bride around the holy Guru Granth Sahib amidst the chanting of the recitations of the hymns composed by the fourth Guru, Guru Ram Dass are the accepted essential ceremonies. There is no word from the statements of the witnesses which could show that any ceremony was referred to by the PWs. Their saying that Anand Karaj was performed is not enough."

In the instant case Amar Singh, who was a witness to prove second marriage, nowhere stated that lavans had taken place and in his earlier statement he even did not mention about any Anand Karaj ceremony. Similar infirmity existed in the statements of witnesses examined to prove first marriage of Udha Singh with Mohinder Kaur. As such there was no solemnisation of any second marriage and even if Jagwant Kaur resided with Udha Singh that fact alone will not render Udha Singh liable for any criminal offence.

Another infirmity that existed in the case of Mohinder Kaur was long delay in filing the complaint. Mohinder Kaur stated that she was married in the year 1958 and was turned out of the house after about 11/2 years of her marriage. Since then she was completely neglected and deserted by Udha Singh. The second marriage of Udha Singh is alleged to have been performed in October, 1968 but the complaint was filed in the year 1979. According to her own statement Mohinder Kaur had learnt about the second marriage about 21/2 years prior to the filing of the complaint. The parties were living separately for the last 20 years before the filing of the complaint and there was no likelihood of any compromise or reconciliation. In these circumstances the delay in filing the complaint itself was enough to discard the version of the complaint. The assertion of the complainant that she learned about the second marriage after to years of its performance too cannot be accepted in view of the fact that her real sister''s husband Sadhu Singh, who was stated to have arranged her marriage with Udha Singh was a resident of the village of Udha Singh and if Udha Singh had performed second marriage he must have know about the same immediately thereafter and he would not have taken time to inform his relation Mohinder Kaur about the same. Amar Singh PW was also connected with the real brother of Mohinder Kaur and had been often meeting him. He too must have informed Mukhtiar Singh about the second marriage if it had actually taken place. In these circumstances it appears that the complaint was filed with some ulterior motive.

As a result, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit Udha Singh of the offence with which he was charged. As the revision petition has been accepted and Udha Singh has been acquitted, there is no question of enhancing the sentence and Criminal Misc. No. 5578M of 1986, therefore, fails and is, hereby, dismissed.