Case Note & Summary
Background: This criminal appeal arose from a bigamy prosecution where the first respondent was charged under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, respondent No.7 under Section 494 read with Section 109, and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and 8-9 under Section 494 read with Section 120B. The trial took place before Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bikaner. The trial court held that the prosecution had not proved through proper witnesses the essential ceremony of Saptapadi to establish the factum of the second marriage of respondent No.1. The High Court found it was not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal by order dated 18.07.1978. The appellant, the complainant wife, preferred the present criminal appeal before the Supreme Court. Facts: The prosecution alleged that respondent No.1 had contracted a second marriage with respondent No.4, Bimla, while his first marriage with the appellant was subsisting. The evidence of PW2 to PW5 was examined. The trial court concluded that the essential ceremony of Saptapadi, the taking of seven steps before the sacred fire, had not been proved through proper witnesses. The High Court declined leave to appeal. The appellant contended that even if Saptapadi was not proved, there was enough evidence including eye witnesses to the marriage to establish the second marriage. Legal Issues: The core question was whether proof of the essential ceremony of Saptapadi is mandatory to establish the factum of a second marriage for an offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. A related issue was whether eye witness evidence of marriage could substitute for proof of essential ceremonies, and whether compensation could be awarded under Article 142 of the Constitution. Arguments: The appellant argued that the principle of Saptapadi could not be insisted upon when the marriage as a fact was established by eye witnesses. The respondents argued that Saptapadi was an essential ceremony and without proof of such ceremony a case for bigamy could not arise. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court referred to Kanwal Ram v. H.P. Administration, AIR 1966 SC 614, Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, and Priya Bal v. Suresh Chandra, AIR 1971 SC 1153. It held that a marriage is not proved unless the essential ceremonies required for its solemnisation are proved to have been performed. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 lays down conditions for a Hindu marriage, and Section 7 provides that where rites include Saptapadi, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. In the present case, the parties had not proved any custom under which these essential ceremonies need not be performed, and the evidence of PW2 to PW5 did not establish Saptapadi. Therefore, the factum of second marriage could not be held to have been made out. Decision: Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' view that the offence under Section 494 IPC was not established. However, noting that the first respondent was undoubtedly living with Bimla as husband and wife, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to award compensation of Rs.25,000 to the appellant, payable by the first respondent within eight weeks from the date of judgment. The criminal appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bigamy - Proof of Second Marriage - Essential Ceremony Saptapadi - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 494, 109, 120B; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5, 7 - The trial court and High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove Saptapadi; the Supreme Court reiterated that a marriage is not proved unless essential ceremonies are proved. Held that in the absence of proof of Saptapadi, the factum of second marriage cannot be established for an offence under Section 494 IPC. B) Personal Law - Hindu Marriage - Customary Rites and Essential Ceremonies - Section 7 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The Court noted that parties did not prove any custom dispensing with Homa and Saptapadi; therefore proof of these essential rites was required. Held that evidence of eye witnesses to the marriage without proof of essential ceremonies is insufficient. C) Constitutional Law - Article 142 - Compensation to Complainant Despite Acquittal - Constitution of India, Article 142 - Although the criminal charge of bigamy failed, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to award Rs.25,000 compensation to the appellant because the first respondent was living with Bimla as husband and wife. Held that the appellant should not be left in the lurch; compensation payable within eight weeks.
Issue of Consideration
Whether proof of Saptapadi is essential to establish second marriage under Section 494 IPC; whether eye witness evidence can substitute for proof of essential ceremonies; whether compensation can be awarded under Article 142 despite failure to prove bigamy
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that in the absence of proof of Saptapadi, the factum of second marriage could not be established, and therefore the criminal appeal against acquittal was dismissed on that point. However, exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court awarded compensation of Rs.25,000 to the appellant, payable by the first respondent within eight weeks from the date of judgment.
Law Points
- A marriage is not proved unless essential ceremonies required for its solemnisation are proved to have been performed
- Saptapadi is an essential ceremony under Section 7 Hindu Marriage Act 1955
- evidence of eye witnesses to marriage is insufficient without proof of essential ceremonies
- custom dispensing with essential ceremonies must be proved by the parties
- Article 142 Constitution of India allows compensation to complainant despite failure to prove criminal offence
