Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court of India arose from a second prosecution for the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellants were convicted and sentenced in an earlier complaint filed by the wife of appellant 2, who alleged that appellant 1 had married appellant 2 during the subsistence of a prior valid marriage. The trial court had imposed simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs 2000 each with a default sentence. Subsequently, respondent 1, who claimed to be the husband of appellant 1, filed a fresh complaint against the same appellants and other relations, who were also parties in the first complaint, again under Section 494 IPC. The appellants moved for discharge contending that their previous conviction barred the second trial under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Magistrate dismissed the discharge application and the High Court in revision upheld that order, holding that the benefit of Section 300 CrPC was not available because the facts in the second complaint were not the same. The Supreme Court examined Section 300(1) CrPC and the definition of offence under Section 2(n) CrPC. The Court noted that the bar under Section 300(1) applies when a person has been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted, and while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, that person is not liable to be tried again for the same offence. The Court found that the offence alleged in both complaints was bigamy under Section 494 IPC, which is committed when a husband or wife marries during the lifetime of his or her spouse. The only distinction was that the first complaint was filed by the first wife of the husband, whereas the second complaint was filed by the husband of the wife who remarried. The Court held that the offence remained the same and that the second trial was clearly barred by Section 300 CrPC. The High Court misdirected itself in distinguishing the complaints on facts when the offence was identical. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate, and directed that the appellants stand discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Double Jeopardy - Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Bars second trial for the same offence after conviction or acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction - The offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is the same offence regardless of who files the complaint, and differing facts except the alleged marriage do not remove the bar - The High Court erred in recording that facts being different justified proceeding; the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and discharged the appellants - Held that a person cannot be prosecuted and tried a second time for the same offence of bigamy on another complaint filed by another person (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in finding that the appellants were liable to be proceeded with and not liable to be discharged on the second complaint filed under Section 494 IPC, for which they had been convicted and sentenced earlier.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; orders of the High Court and the Magistrate set aside; appellants stand discharged.
Law Points
- Section 300(1) CrPC bars second trial for same offence
- Offence defined under Section 2(n) CrPC as act or omission made punishable by law
- Second complaint for same offence barred even if filed by different complainant
- Facts differing except alleged marriage do not remove bar
- Conviction remains in force until set aside
