Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Chandra vs Prakash Chandra And Ors. ... on 5 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:53793]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 423/1996
1- Jh jkepUnz iq= Jh 'kadjyky iapky fuoklh ckalokM+k] jktLFkku
----Appellant
Versus
1- Jh izdk'k pUnz iq= Jh ukFkwyky iapky fuoklh ckalokM+kA
2- Jh euksgjyky iq= Jh 'kadjyky iapky fuoklh lkxckMk] ftyk
MwaxjiqjA
3- Jh lqcsUnz iq= Jh 'kadjyky iapky fuoklh lkxokMk] ftyk MwaxjiqjA
4- lqJh ghjk iq=h Jh 'kadjyky iapky fuoklh dfyatjk] ftyk ckalokM+kA
5- Jherh y{eh iRuh Jh 'kadjyky iapky fuoklh dfyatjkA
6- Jh 'kadjyky iq= Jh dsoyth iapky fuoklh dfyatjk] ftyk
ckalokM+kA
7- Jh egsUnz iq= Jh ukFkwyky iapky fuoklh ckalokM+k] jktLFkkuA
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Sisodia, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Mr. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 05/12/2025 01- ;g vihy fo}ku vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] ckalokM+k }kjk QkStnkjh vihy la[;k 50@1995 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 30-07-1996 ls O;fFkr gksdj ifjoknh dh vksj ls çLrqr dh xbZ pwafd vihyh; U;k;ky; us vihy dks Lohdkj djrs gq, izR;FkhZx.k dks nks"keqDr dj fn;kA 02- çdj.k ds laf{kIr rF; bl çdkj gSa fd vihykFkhZ jkepaæ ds }kjk ,d ifjokn izR;FkhZx.k ds fo#) çLrqr dj ;g vkjksi yxk;k fd mldh cgu dk fookg fganw fof/k ds lkFk çR;FkhZ çdk'kpaæ ds lkFk 1982 esa gqvk] ;g vkjksi yxk;k fd lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k us ,d er gksdj izR;FkhZ;k (Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 02:27:10 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:18:42 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53793] (2 of 7) [CRLA-423/1996] Jherh ghjk dk nwljk fookg izR;FkhZ çdk'k paæ ds lkFk djk fn;k tcfd çdk'k paæ vkSj ifjoknh dh cgu fo|k dk fookg vfLrRo esa FkkA bl çdkj /kkjk 494 ,oa 494 lifBr /kkjk 109 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds vijk/k esa dk;Zokgh çkjaHk dh xbZA ckn fopkj.k fopj.k U;k;ky; ds }kjk vius fu.kZ;
fnukad 22-12-1994 ls çR;FkhZx.k dks /kkjk 494 ,oa /kkjk 494 lifBr /kkjk 109 esa nks"kfl) fd;k tkdj mudks dkjkokl dh ltk lqukbZA 03- U;kf;d eftLVªsV ckxhnkSjk ds fu.kZ; fnukad 22-12-1994 ls O;fFkr gksdj izR;FkhZx.k dh vksj ls vihy çLrqr dh xbZ ftlesa mHk;i{k dh lquokbZ i'pkr vfHk;qDrx.k dh vihy dks Lohdkj djrs gq,] fopj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ,oa naMkns'k dks vikLr fd;k x;k] bl çdkj ;g vihy ifjoknh dh vksj ls bl U;k;ky; esa çLrqr gqbZ gSA 04- mHk; i{k ds vf/koDrkx.k dks lquk x;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;
dk lw{erkiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA vfHk;kstu ij ;g Hkkj Fkk fd og ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs ;g çekf.kr djkosa fd vfHk;qDr çdk'k ds }kjk iwoZ ls fookfgr gksrs gq, nwljk fookg vU; vfHk;qDr ghjk ds lkFk dj fy;k vkSj bl çdkj mlus /kkjk 494 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dk vijk/k fd;k rFkk vU; vfHk;qDrx.k us mUgsa mDr vijk/k djus ds fy, nq"çsfjr fd;kA bl laca/k esa ihMCY;w 01 fxjtk'kadj dh lk{; dk fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; us vkykspukRed ,oa lw{erkiwoZd foospu fd;kA bl lk{kh ds laca/k esa fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; us ;g /kkj.kk cukbZ fd og çdj.k ds ifjoknh ls vR;f/kd fgrc) gS vkSj mldk vkpj.k Hkh lafnX/k gS] bl dkj.k vfHk;kstu lk{kh Øekad 01 fxjtk'kadj dh lk{; fo'oluh; ugha gSA bl laca/k esa (Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 02:27:10 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:18:42 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53793] (3 of 7) [CRLA-423/1996] U;k;ky; ds }kjk lk{kh fxjtk'kadj ds c;kuksa dk iquewZY;kadu fd;kA bl xokg dk ;g dguk fd fookg ds le; oj dk uke ç|qr dqekj vkSj o/kw dk uke çseyrk Fkk] tks gkftj vnkyr gSA mlus ;g dgk fd ç|qr dqekj dk uke çdk'k Fkk] bl ckr dk mldks ckn esa irk pykA bl laca/k esa bl xokg ls luk[rh dh dk;Zokgh dkuwuh fu;ekuqlkj ugha djokbZ xbZA fookg ds laca/k esa tks dkxtkr cuk,a ml ij miyC/k gLrfyfi vkSj gLrk{kj dks vfHk;qDr ds gLrk{kj ls feyku ugha djok;k x;kA fo}ku vihyh;
U;k;ky; us ;g ekuk fd bl ekeys esa dksbZ Hkh fu"i{k xokg is'k ugha fd;k x;kA dfyatjk] tgka 'kknh gksuk crk;k gS] og ,d cM+k xkao gS] tgka ij ,d Fkkuk Hkh gS ysfdu 'kknh esa tkus okys fdlh Hkh O;fDr vFkok 'kknh dks ns[kus okys fdlh lk{kh dks ;k iM+kslh dks vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls is'k ugha djok;kA 'kknh dk dksbZ iathdj.k ugha gqvk cfYd [kqys :i ls 'kknh gksuk crk;kA ,slk dksbZ fu"i{k xokg tks ?kVukLFky dk iM+kslh gks ;k xkao dfyatjk dk fuoklh gks] is'k ugha fd;k tks ;g dg lds fd mlds lkeus izR;FkhZ çdk'k us vU; çR;FkhZ;k ghjk ds lkFk fookg fd;k FkkA 'kknh dk dksbZ dkMZ] yxu ;k fuea=.k if=dk Hkh is'k ugha gqbZ gSA fo}ku vihyh;
U;k;ky; us bl rF; dks Hkh /;ku esa fy;k fd izR;FkhZ ghjk dh vksj ls çLrqr 'kiFk i= esa mlds ifr dk uke ghjkyky fy[kk gqvk Fkk tcfd vkjksi izR;FkhZ izdk'k ds lkFk fookg dk yxk;k x;kA 'kiFk i= esa vafdr fd;k gqvk gS fd Jherh ghjk us viuh 'kknh ghjkyky iq= Jh xkSre ds lkFk gksuk crk;k rFkk blh çdkj ghjkyky us Hkh vius 'kiFk i= esa viuh 'kknh Jherh ghjk ds lkFk gksuk crk;k vkSj viuh iRuh ekuk gSA leLr (Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 02:27:10 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:18:42 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53793] (4 of 7) [CRLA-423/1996] lk{; ds foospu mijkar ;g eglwl fd;k x;k fd vfHk;kstu dk tks nkf;Ro Fkk fd os Bksl ,oa lq-<+ lk{; ds ek/;e ls ;qfDr;qDr lans'k ls ijs U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g çekf.kr djk, fd ,d izR;FkhZ us nwljs izR;FkhZ ls igys fookg ds vfLrRo esa gksrs gq, nwljk fookg fd;k gSA fuf'pr :i ls vfHk;kstu ;g çekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA 05- /kkjk 494 ds vkjksi dks çekf.kr djus ds fy, lk{; dh xq.koÙkk ds laca/k esa bl U;k;ky; ds U;k; fu.kZ; Vinod Kumari vs State And Ors on 3 September, 2025 esa fof/k dk foospu fd;k x;k gS] tks bl izdkj gS%& ``1. The present criminal appeal has been instituted by the appellant- complainant, Smt. Vinod Kumari, assailing the judgment rendered by the learned appellate Court i.e. Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Hanumangarh in on 28.03.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.13/2017, whereby the [2025:RJ-JD:38623] (2 of 7) [CRLAS-734/2023] respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned judgment, the appellate Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence earlier imposed by the learned trial Court i.e. learned ACJM, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 27.01.2017 passed in Criminal Original Case No.31/2001 wherein Respondent No.2, Prem Kumar, and Respondent No.7 Kamla were convicted for the offence of bigamy and sentenced to undergo two years SI alongwith fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default to further undergo three months SI; while Respondents No.3 to 6 were found guilty of abetment and were accordingly sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs. 15,000 each and in default to undergo one month's SI. Out of the total compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-, a sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be directed to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the material available on record. 2.1. The factual matrix of the present case originates from the marital alliance between the appellant and Respondent No.2, which was solemnized nearly fifteen years prior to the initiation of the complaint. The couple cohabited for a substantial period of time; however, according to the appellant, she was subsequently expelled from her matrimonial home nearly six years before the institution of these proceedings. In the intervening period, she was constrained to seek legal remedies by instituting criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal [2025:RJ-JD:38623] (3 of 7) [CRLAS-734/2023] Code, 1860, as well as maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2.2. The fulcrum of the present prosecution, however, rests upon the accusation that during the continuance of this valid and subsisting marriage, Respondent (Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 02:27:10 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:18:42 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53793] (5 of 7) [CRLA-423/1996] No.2 purportedly entered into another matrimonial alliance with Respondent No.7. It is further alleged that Respondents No.3 to 6, despite their knowledge of the existing marital tie, not only acquiesced in but also facilitated and participated in the solemnization of the said second marriage. 2.3. Upon the lodging of the complaint, the learned Magistrate embarked upon the procedure mandated under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, conducting a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the veracity of the allegations. Having found sufficient grounds to proceed, process was accordingly issued against the accused persons. The matter was thereafter posted for trial, wherein the prosecution adduced the testimony of four witnesses in support of its case. Following the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC to afford them an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them.
2.4. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court arrived at the finding that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt. On such determination, Respondent No 2 and Respondent No.7 were held guilty of the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC, while Respondents No.3 to 6 were convicted for abetment of the said offence under Section [2025:RJ-JD:38623] (4 of 7) [CRLAS-734/2023] 494 r.w. 109 IPC. The learned Trial Court accordingly imposed sentences commensurate with the gravity of the offences as proved.
2.5. The prosecution sought to fortify its case by contending that advance information regarding the purported second marriage of Respondent No.2 with Respondent No.7 had been conveyed to the complainant party by Jagdish and Shankarlal. Significantly, however, neither of these two alleged informants were produced as a witness during the course of trial, thereby depriving the prosecution of potentially material testimony. 2.6. Further infirmities surface in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses themselves. The accounts regarding the manner of travel to the supposed place of marriage are glaringly inconsistent and mutually destructive. The appellant deposed that she journeyed to the venue by passenger bus. P.W.2 Joruram, on the other hand, claimed to have travelled in a jeep to Gogamedi, notwithstanding that the prosecution's case was that the marriage was solemnized at Ramgadh. P.W.3 Radheshyam asserted that he travelled by train, whereas P.W.4 Arjun Ram deposed that he and Radheshyam travelled together to Gogamedi by train--a place geographically distinct from Ramgadh. These discrepancies are not trivial; rather, they strike at the very root of the prosecution story, undermining the credibility of the witnesses and eroding the substratum of the case.
3. It is a settled proposition of law that to establish the offence under Section 494 IPC, the prosecution must incontrovertibly [2025:RJ-JD:38623] (5 of 7) [CRLAS-734/2023] prove two indispensable ingredients: first, the existence of a valid and subsisting marriage between the complainant and the accused at the relevant time; and second, the performance of another marriage by the accused with all essential ceremonies and customary rites recognized under personal law, thereby rendering the said marriage legally valid. It is equally well- established that vague allegations of cohabitation, or assertions of the parties living together as husband and wife, fall far short of the statutory requirement under Section 494 IPC.
3.1. Measured against this rigorous standard, the prosecution's case is found gravely wanting. Not only is there an absolute dearth of evidence to prove the solemnization of the alleged second marriage with the requisite ceremonies, but there is also no cogent proof of subsequent cohabitation between Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.7 as husband and wife. The testimonies of the four prosecution witnesses are riddled with contradictions, bereft of corroboration (Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 02:27:10 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:18:42 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53793] (6 of 7) [CRLA-423/1996] either from independent witnesses or documentary material, and wholly unreliable. The inconsistencies relating to the very place of marriage (Ramgadh and Gogamedi), the time of occurrence, and the mode of travel render the evidence inherently improbable and incapable of sustaining a conviction.
3.2. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence dictates that the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, which must establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however grave, can never be a substitute for proof. In the present [2025:RJ-JD:38623] (6 of 7) [CRLAS-734/2023] case, the complainant's claim of having witnessed the alleged marriage is palpably an afterthought, unsupported by her earlier statements and uncorroborated by credible evidence. 3.3. Judicial precedent reinforces this conclusion. In Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 1564), the Supreme Court categorically held that unless the second marriage is shown to have been performed with proper ceremonies and due form, conviction under Section 494 IPC cannot be sustained. Similarly, in Kanwal Ram v. Himachal Pradesh Administration (AIR 1966 SC 614), it was held that mere admissions or vague allegations are insufficient; the prosecution must discharge its burden through concrete proof. The principle was further elucidated in Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh (AIR 1971 SC 1153), where it was underscored that the performance of essential ceremonies such as saptapadi is indispensable, and mere cohabitation or social recognition as husband and wife cannot substitute lawful solemnization. This doctrine was reiterated in Lingari Obulamma v. L. Venkata Reddy ((1979) 2 SCC 134).
Applying these binding authorities to the present factual matrix, it is abundantly clear that the prosecution has signally failed to establish that Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.7 underwent a valid marriage ceremony in accordance with law. Neither documentary evidence nor credible oral testimony substantiates the charge. The contradictions in the prosecution's case are fatal and demolish its very foundation.
[2025:RJ-JD:38623] (7 of 7) [CRLAS-734/2023]
4. On a meticulous reappraisal of the evidence, the learned Appellate Court rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Its reasoning is sound, well-founded, and firmly rooted in settled principles of law. The complainant's belated claim of being an eyewitness to the ceremony is untenable and devoid of probative value. The appellate court's findings are plausible, free from perversity, and warrant no interference.
5. In light of the foregoing discussion and guided by the authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court is persuaded to affirm the view of the appellate court. The prosecution has abjectly failed to discharge its burden of proof with respect to the commission of offences under Sections 494 and 109 IPC. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the appellate court stands affirmed. The present appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed, and the record shall be transmitted back to the court below forthwith. '' 06- bl izdkj fof/k dh fLFkfr ds vkyksd ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;
dks ns[krs gq, gLrxr vihy esa dksbZ lkj izrhr ugha gksrk gSA fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; us lk{; dk Hkyh Hkkafr foospu fd;k gS ftlesa fdlh (Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 02:27:10 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:18:42 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:53793] (7 of 7) [CRLA-423/1996] çdkj dh fof/kd ,oa rkfRod =qfV ugha gS vr% vihy [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS] rn~uqlkj vihy fujLr dh tkrh gSA vfHk;qDr ds }kjk ;fn tekur eqpyds izLrqr fd, x, gSa rks os fujLr fd, tkrs gSaA 07- v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks vfHkys[k vfoyac fHktok fn;k tkosA (FARJAND ALI),J 7-Rakesh/-
(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 02:27:10 PM) (Downloaded on 19/12/2025 at 09:18:42 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)