lawweb 22 April 2018

Whether accused can be convicted for bigamy if he has admitt

Whether accused can be convicted for bigamy if he has admitted performance of second marriage?

As far as conviction and sentenced of the appellant

under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned,
there is no evidence on record to establish the fact that, the
second marriage of appellant with Mrs. Shyamal was
solemnized that means he celebrated the marriage with
proper ceremonies and in due form. The Supreme Court in
the case of Baburao Shankar Lokhande and another vs. The
State of Maharashtra and another reported in AIR 1965 S.C.
1564 has held that, for application of Section 494,
marriage must come within 'solemnized marriage'.
'Solemnize' means to celebrate the marriage with proper
ceremonies and in due form. Mere going through certain
ceremonies with intention to marriage will not make the
ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by customs. It is
further held that, it is essential for the purpose of Section
17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage applies on
account of the Act, should have been celebrated with
proper ceremonies and in due form. It is further held that
merely going through certain ceremonies with the intention
that the parties be taken to be married will not make the

ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by any
established custom. In the present case to prove the
second marriage of the appellant the prosecution has relied
upon the admissions given by the Mr. Pandit Kamble (P.W.1)
father of the deceased Shyamal and Smt. Ujwala
Suryawanshi (D.W.2) sister of the appellant. The Supreme
Court in the case of Kanwal Ram and others vs. The
Himachal Pradesh Administration reported in 1966 SC 614
while relying on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court
in the case of Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande (supra) has
further held that, in a bigamy case, the second marriage as
a fact, that is to say, the essential ceremonies constituting
it, must be proved. Admission of marriage by the accused is
not evidence of it for the purpose of proving marriage in an
adultery or bigamy case. As noted herein above, there is no
evidence on record to establish the fact beyond reasonable
doubt that the appellant in fact had solemnized marriage
with Mrs. Shyamal on 1.4.2012, the view expressed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Baburao Shankar Lokhande

(supra) is followed by it in the case of Kanwal Ram (supra),
in Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh vs. Suresh Chandra Ghosh reported
in 1971 (1) SCC 864 and in Laxmi Devi (Smt.) Satya
Narayan and ors. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 545.
9. There is no evidence on record to establish that, the
appellant performed second marriage by following
necessary and essential ceremonies as per the mandate of
law. It is therefore, clear from the evidence on record that
the marriage between the appellant and the deceased Mrs.
Shyamal was not established beyond reasonable doubt by
the prosecution and consequently does not come within the
purview of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code even
though the first wife of the appellant Mrs. Sangeeta was
alive when he married with Mrs. Shyamal in April, 2012.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.672 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.197 OF 2018

Vidyasagar Irappa Mane, Vs The State of Maharashtra,

CORAM: A.S.GADKARI, J.
DATE :13TH APRIL, 2018.