Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12.5 The relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Rupa and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (Criminal Misc. Application No. 31568/2011) decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad on 29.08.2013, reads as under:-

"27. For abetment of an offence, it is necessary that the abettor must have either instigated any person to do such an offence or must have engaged in a conspiracy for doing such an illegal act. In the instant case, there is no allegation against the applicants that they instigated Rajesh Kumar Deorar to commit an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. There is no allegation that the applicants engaged themselves in any criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under Section 494 IPC. It is the case of applicant No. 1 that she did not know about any prior marriage of Rajesh Kumar Deorar with opposite party No. 2. Her presence at the time of incident dated 7.12.2010 has been falsified as held earlier. In the absence of any knowledge of prior marriage of Rajesh Kumar Deorar, the applicants cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 494 IPC read with Section 109 or 114 IPC. As far as the material available in the case diary is concerned, it is evident that the second marriage of Rajesh did not taken place in the presence of opposite parry No. 2. Yogesh Kumar is a photographer, who performed photography and videography of the marriage, which took place on 9.12.2010 at Haridwar, During further investigation, statements of Laxmi Shanker Srivastava, Roshan Singh and Surendra Singh were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who stated that they went to Hotel View at Haridwar and found the marriage between Rajesh Kumar Deorar and Rupa being solemnized and seven pheras were performed. They questioned Rajesh Kumar Deorar that his first wife was alive and he did not do a proper tiling by performing remarriage, but Rajesh did not reply. From the statements of these three witnesses, only this much transpires that they protested with Rajesh Kumar Deorar (19 of 42) [CRLMP-3716/2022] about performing second marriage, but did not inform the applicants that Rajesh Kumar Deorar was married earlier with opposite party No. 2. They do not even speak about whether saptpadi was performed which is an essential ceremony for a valid marriage.
28. There is nothing in the FIR or in the statements of witnesses recorded in the case diary to show that the applicants had prior knowledge of alleged marriage of informant with Rajesh Kumar Deorar. To hold a person guilty for an offence of abetment to commit bigamy, it is essential to prove that such person must have prior knowledge of the existence of first marriage of the main person who is guilty of an offence under Section 494 IPC. In the absence of such knowledge, a person cannot be said to be guilty of abetment to commit an offence under Section 494 IPC. It may, however, be noted that the alleged earlier marriage between opposite party No. 2 and Rajesh Kumar Deorar is not an admitted fact and is yet to be established by positive evidence.
30. In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that there was any intentional abetment on the part of the applicants to commit an offence under Section 494 IPC. Mere presence of applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 at the tune of marriage of applicant Mo. 1 with Rajesh Kumar Deorar does not make them criminally liable with-out any criminal intent on their past.

In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that Rajesh Kumar Deorar and his family members as well as Chhotey Singh and Ram Sajan, who were present at the house of Rajesh Kumar Deorar on 7.12.2010, may be presumed to have the knowledge of (20 of 42) [CRLMP-3716/2022] alleged earlier marriage of Rajesh Kumar Deorar with opposite party No. 2 and may be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC or its abetment, but as far as applicants are concerned, there is no material to suggest that they had any prior knowledge of the alleged marriage between the opposite party No. 2 and Rajesh Kumar Deorar and, therefore, they cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 494 IPC read with Section 109 or 114 IPC."

10. There may be cases where a Muslim male or female can be prosecuted for offence under Section 494 IPC also. In a case where a Muslim male marries a fifth wife, he can very well be prosecuted under Section 494 IPC since the 5th marriage will be void, personal law being having permitted only four wives to be taken together. Similarly a Muslim female contracting a second marriage can be proceeded with for offence under Section 494 IPC. Thus submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that offence under Section 494 IPC is discriminatory between Hindu/Muslim/Christian is not acceptable.