The evidence of complainant shows that she has not
uttered word about the ceremonies which were followed during
her marriage with accused No. 1. The witnesses are interested
witnesses and the aforesaid evidence is not sufficient and
probable to prove any custom and ceremonies followed in their
community. Advocate for appellant placed reliance on the case
reported as AIR 2001 SC 3576 [S. Nagalingam Vs. Sivagami].
It is observed by the Apex Court that if as per the community
customs, Saptapadi is not essential, the marriage does not
became invalid, if other customs and rites followed in the
community are followed for solemnization of the marriage. There
cannot be any dispute over this proposition. Advocate for
respondent placed reliance on the case reported as 1991 AIR
(SC) 816 [Santi Deb Berma Vs. Kanchan Pravadevi]. In this
case, the Apex Court has laid down that to prove the offence
punishable under section 494 of I.P.C., it is necessary to prove
that as per the customs of community Saptapadi was not
necessary for solemnization of the marriage. In the case reported
as 2001 CRI.L.J. 1583 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) [D.
Vijayalakshmi Vs. D. Sanjeeva Reddy], the Apex Court has
laid down that first and second marriage must be proved in
accordance with the legal requirements, caste, customs of
particular caste. It is further held that absence of proof of
solemnization of any one of the marriage would defeat charge
under section 494 of I.P.C. Reliance was placed on two other cases
reported as 2001 AIR (SC) 938 [Surajmani Stella Kujur Vs.
Durga Charan Hansdah] and 2007 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 72
(Nagpur Bench) [Snehalata Kailash Ingale Vs. Kailash
Rajaramji Ingale & Ors.].
The observations made by the Apex Court and the
High Court in the aforesaid cases show that the evidence given by
the complainant and her witnesses is short for proving the offence
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Smt. Kerabai w/o. Ramrao Nakhate,
Ramrao S/o. Laxman Nakhate,
T. V. NALAWADE, J.
29th January, 2013.