Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

39. In Godawari v. State of Maharashtra 1985 Cri LJ 1472 (Bom) the Magistrate acquitted the accused. The complainant (wife) filed an appeal. In that case the Magistrate found that the first marriage of accused No. 1 with the complainant was established since accused No. 1 in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code himself admitted the said marriage. The Magistrate held that the first marriage was subsisting when the alleged second marriage was solemnized by accused No. 1 with accused No. 8. As regards the second marriage of accused No. 1 with accused No. 8, he held on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant that accused No. 1 married accused No. 8 according to the ceremonies and the customary rites of the caste to which they belonged as deposed to by the witnesses. He held that the second marriage was validly seolemnized between accused No. 1 and accused No. 8. Having held that the second marriage was validly performed between accused No. 1 and accused No. 8 during the subsistence of the first marriage, he held that accused No. 1 was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the other accused also. The Sessions Judge on appeal found that the first marriage between the complainant and accused No. 1 cannot be held to be proved merely by the admission of accused No. 1 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he held that to establish that there was a first valid marriage between the complainant and accused No. 1, the complainant should have led requisite evidence of the solemnisation of the said marriage. No such evidence with regard to the first marriage of accused No. 1 with the complainant was led on behalf of the complainant. Hence he held that the complainant failed to prove that there was a valid marriage performed between her and theaccusedNo. 1 which was subsisting during the alleged second marriage contracted by accused No. l with accused No. 8.Withregard to the alleged second marriage of A-1 with A-8, he held that the evidence of the two witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant was not worthy of credence because in the first place they were related to the complainant and were, therefore, interested witnesses and also because of their conduct in not reporting the matter either to the police or to the complainant immediately after they witnessed the solemnisation of the alleged illegal second marriage. The accused were acquitted. The first question that was considered is whether the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the first marriage can be accepted. The reasoning given in Kanwal Ram's case (supra) was considered. The learned Judge was also aware of the fact that in the Supreme Court cases, the question of validity of the second marriage alone was considered. But, however, by taking into consideration the observation of the Supreme Court, it was found that the mere statement of the accused is not sufficient to prove the marriage in the case of bigamy. The learned Judge took into consideration that for an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, both the marriages must be legal and valid. Unless these ingredients are satisfied, the accused cannot be punished for an offence of bigamy. The learned Judge observed as follows:

45. In Venkat asubbarayudu v. Venkatiah this Court had held that the marriage between A-1 and A-2 was not a marriage in the proper form and hence it has to be held that the marriage has not yet been solemnised. The High Court also affirmed the finding that if the second marriage is not a valid one according to the law applicable to the parties, no question of its being void by reason of its taking place during the life of the husband or wife of the person marrying arises. The High Court also found that no offence has been committed under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code when the second marriage is not valid. In that case, the appellant canvassed the validity of the second marriage only.

58. In Sitaratnam v. Venkata Ramakrishna (unreported judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 753/87 dt. 17-8-'88) the first marriage was held to be a valid marriage by the Magistrate and the same was confirmed by the Sessions Judge. The dispute is only with regard to the fact of the second marriage of A-l. Both the courts below found that the second marriage has taken place at Simhachalam Temple as alleged, but the necessary ceremonies that are required for a valid marriage, have not been proved. The direct evidence adduced with regard to the fact urn of the second marriage was found to be a doubtful one. As there is no valid second marriage in the eye of law, the finding of the two courts has been confirmed.

77. For the reasons stated above, the complainant failed to prove that there is a valid marriage according to Hindu Law between A-1 and A-2.

78. In view of the fact of finding.)hal the second marriages under the Hindu Law and Muslim Law are found to be not valid, A-1 Sudarsana Rao alias Saleem Mohammed and A-2 Lakshmi alias Laila Banu are not liable for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, Since the main offence against A-1 and A-2 for contracting a valid second marriage has not been made out, A-3 to A-8, though holding the position of rank and influence, are not liable for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.