Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devkaran vs Vishnu Prasad, The State Of M.P. on 12 July, 2018
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
-: 7:- Cr.A.No.1376 of 1998
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
BENCH INDORE
( Single Bench )
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Virender Singh)
Criminal Appeal No.1376 of 1998
Devkaran S/o Kashiram Khati
VERSUS
Vishnuprasad S/o Heeralal Khati and
State of M.P. through
P.S. Dewas, Distt. Dewas
*****
Shri Dinesh Kumar Tiwari,
learned Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ravi Arora, learned
counsel for the respondent
No.1/Vishnuprasad.
Shri Rajesh Joshi, learned
Govt. Advocate for the respondent
No.2/State.
*****
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on this 12th day of July, 2018) 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 -: 7:- Cr.A.No.1376 of 1998 Hindu rites and rituals. She remained with Vishnuprasad for next two years. During this period Vishnuprasad ill 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.
[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.
[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), Lekhraj Pohni (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 -: 7:- Cr.A.No.1376 of 1998 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.
[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 -: 7:- Cr.A.No.1376 of 1998 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 Lekhraj Pohni (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 (PW-
10) have come forward with this statement that Vishnuprasad brought Sumitrabai as his wife through Natra method. 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 Parivar method. Both the witnesses have narrated the rituals followed at the time of the marriage through the Gayatri Parivar method.
[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 Natra method and he has admitted that out of that two rituals he witnessed only -: 7:- Cr.A.No.1376 of 1998 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 Parivar method is also doubtful as Tulsiram, who performed rituals of Gayatri Parivar Paddhti has stated that he completed all rituals of this marriage. On the contrary, Santosh Bharadwaj (DW-1), who was Manager of Gauatri Shaktipeeth 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 Parivar only two persons Mangilal Bhargava and Mohanlal Barve are authorized to perform rituals of marriage. Tulsiram Soni 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 -: 7:- Cr.A.No.1376 of 1998 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.
(Virender Singh) Judge ns.
Digitally signed by Neeraj SarvateDate: 2018.07.13 10:41:30 +05'30'