Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal complaint filed by the appellant against her husband, the respondent, alleging that he married a second wife during the subsistence of their marriage, thereby committing bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant claimed that she married the respondent in or about 1948 according to Hindu rites, and that the respondent later married Sandhya Rani on May 31, 1962. The trial Magistrate convicted the respondent, but the Sessions Judge acquitted him on appeal, finding that essential ceremonies for a valid marriage had not been proved. The Calcutta High Court confirmed the acquittal, leading to the present appeal by special leave. The main legal issues were whether the prosecution must prove that the alleged second marriage was performed with essential religious rites, and whether the respondent's admission in earlier maintenance proceedings could be treated as evidence of a valid second marriage. The appellant argued that the priest's evidence that the marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites implied all essential ceremonies were performed, and that the respondent's admission in Ex.2 about the second marriage should be accepted. The respondent did not appear before the Supreme Court, but earlier pleaded not guilty and denied marrying the appellant. The Supreme Court examined Sections 5, 7, 11 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It held that a prosecution for bigamy requires proof that the alleged second marriage was duly performed in accordance with the essential religious rites applicable to the parties. Both parties agreed that Homa and Saptapadi were essential rites for a valid marriage under their law, and there was no specific evidence that these ceremonies were performed in the second marriage. Relying on Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra and Kanwal Ram v. Himachal Pradesh Administration, the Court reiterated that conviction cannot be sustained absent proof of essential ceremonies. The Court further held that the admission made by the respondent in prior maintenance proceedings could not be treated as evidence of the second marriage because it was incriminating and had not been put to him under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, denying him an opportunity to explain. Such an admission could not establish that the essential ceremonies had been performed. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal, holding that the respondent was not guilty of bigamy under Section 494 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bigamy - Proof of Second Marriage - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 494; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5, 7, 11, 17 - Prosecution must prove that alleged second marriage was duly performed with essential religious ceremonies applicable to parties; where Homa and Saptapadi are essential and no specific evidence of their performance, conviction cannot stand. Held that acquittal is proper. B) Evidence - Admission - Relevancy in Bigamy Prosecution - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 342 - Prior admission by accused of second marriage cannot be treated as evidence of valid second marriage when it was incriminating and not put to him under Section 342 CrPC, denying opportunity to explain. Held that such admission cannot establish that essential ceremonies were performed. C) Hindu Law - Marriage Ceremonies - Saptapadi and Homa - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 7 - Under Section 7, a Hindu marriage is solemnized by customary rites; where rites include Saptapadi, marriage becomes complete only when seventh step is taken. General evidence of priest that marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites is insufficient to prove performance of essential ceremonies. Held that no presumption of valid marriage arises from such evidence in criminal prosecution for bigamy.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution must prove that the alleged second marriage was duly performed in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to the parties to establish an offence under Section 494 IPC; Whether an admission made by the respondent in prior maintenance proceedings can be relied upon as evidence of a valid second marriage in a bigamy case
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed. Supreme Court held that prosecution failed to prove second marriage was duly performed with essential ceremonies Homa and Saptapadi, and respondent's prior admission cannot be treated as evidence of valid second marriage; conviction under Section 494 IPC not sustainable.
Law Points
- Bigamy requires proof of valid second marriage with essential rites
- admission in prior proceedings not evidence of second marriage
- Hindu Marriage Act Sections 5
- 7
- 11
- 17
- Section 494 IPC
- Section 342 CrPC
