Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Hence considering the materials available on record, it is proved beyond doubt that the accused Mohan Mahto has solemnised second marriage with the accused Deoki Devi when the Complainant is alive. It has come in evidence specifically that the accused Deoki Devi was knowing about the first marriage of the accused no.1 Mohan Mahto. And so accused Deoki Devi is held liable for abetting the offence of bigamy u/s 494 IPC by marrying the accused Mohan Mahto. Though charge for the offence u/s 109 IPC has not been framed in this case, but it is a well settled law that where the accused was charged only with the main offence, here Section 494 of IPC, but it was found in evidence that he/she had really abetted that offence, he/she could still be convicted for abetment, here under Section 494/109 IPC, as she had notice of the fact constituting the offence of abetment, if the same is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

31. So far as the conviction under Section 494/109 IPC of petitioner Mohan Mahto and second wife Deoki Devi is concerned, the petitioner Mohan Mahto has been convicted under section 494 IPC for having solemnised second marriage and Deoki Devi has been convicted under Section 494/109 IPC i.e., abetting for second marriage by petitioner Mohan Mahto with her.

32. So far as petitioner Mohan Mahto is concerned, there is consistent findings and sufficient materials on record to hold that he has solemnised second marriage and accordingly the conviction of the petitioner - Mohan Mahto under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code is upheld.

34. Upon going through the learned trial court's judgment, this Court finds that there is no mention of any material indicating that Deoki Devi had any knowledge at the time of her marriage with Mohan Mahto, that he was already married. There is no material to indicate the role of Deoki Devi in the commission of the alleged offence of second marriage by Mohan Mahto. This Court finds that the leaned trial court, while convicting Deoki Devi under Section 494 with the aid of section 109 of IPC, has committed serious error of record while recording that it has come in evidence that accused Deoki Devi was knowing about the first marriage of accused no.1 Mohan Mahto and convicting Deoki Devi under Section 494 IPC with the aid of Section 109 IPC. There is no doubt that the learned trial court, while considering the evidence on record, has mentioned specifically about the knowledge of the parents of Deoki Devi about the second marriage of Mohan Mahto but there is no evidence that the petitioner Deoki Devi had any knowledge that marriage of Mohan Mahto is second marriage. In the such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner -Deoki Devi had abetted the commission of offence of bigamy by the petitioner - Mohan Mahto.

36. The essential ingredient to instigate the petitioner-Mohan Mahto to solemnize second marriage with petitioner -Deoki Devi on her part is wholly lacking in the records of the case. Thus, the finding of the learned trial court, upheld by the learned appellate court, holding that Deoki Devi knowingly married the accused Mohan Mahto who was already married, and consequent conviction of petitioner -Deoki Devi for abetment of offence under Section 494 committed by Mohan Mahto, is ex facie perverse, based on no evidence against Deoki Devi. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of petitioner -Deoki Devi under section 494/109 IPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and calls for interference under revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the conviction of Deoki Devi under Section 494 /109 IPC is hereby set aside. However, the conviction of Mohan Mahto under Section 494 IPC does not call for any interference.