LexKANWAL RAM AND ORS. versus THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMN.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,.. A B c .. D E . ~ .,, G B 539 KANWAL RAM AND ORS. v. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMN. August 19, 1965 [A. K. SARKAR, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.) Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 494, 109-Bigamy and abet- 111ent thereof-Ad111ission of accused 1vhether sufficient proof of second marriage. K, a woman, was alleged to have married a second time in contraven- tion of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 and was found guilty, alongwith the alleged second husband, of an offence under s. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Two of her relatives were convicted for abet- ment of the above offence. The Trial Court as well as the judicial Com- missioner of Himachal Pradesh held that the evidence of the only witness who was produced to prove the second marriage, fell short of proving it. But the Judicial Commissioner convicted the appellants on certain admis- sions of K and the alleged second husband. In appeal to this Court, HELD : In a bigamy case the second marriage has to be proved as a fact. The necessary ceremonies must be proved to have been performed. Admission of marriage by the accused is not evidence of it for the pur- pose of proving an offence of bigamy or adultery. [541 F-0] Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, [1965] 2 S.C.R. 83 7. relied on. Empress v. Pitambur Singh, (1880) I.L.R. 5 Cal. 566, EmpreS< v. Kallu, (1882) LLR. 5 All. 233 and Morr;.. v. Miller, 4 Burr 2057-98 RR. 73, referred to. R. v. Robinson, ( 1938) 1 A.E.R. 301. <listinguished. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No . 167 of 1963 . Appeal by special leave froin the judgment and order dated July 31, 1963, of the Judicial Commissioner's Court Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1963. S. C. Agarwala, R. K. Garg and D. P. Singh, for the appel- lants. K. L. Hathi and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sarkar J. This appeal arises out of a conviction for bigamy and for the abetment of it under ss. 194 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted the accused persons but on appeal the Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh convic- ted them. Hence this appeal. 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1966) I S.C.R. Originally four persons were charged, namely, Kubja the bride, Kanwal Ram the bridegroom, Hira Nand and Scesia both relations of the bride, the latter two having been charged under s. 494 read with s. 109 for abetmcnt of the offence of bigamy committed by the two first mentioned accused. The charges were framed on the complaint of Sadh Ram to whom Kubja had been earlier married. The complainant had also implicated Hiroo, the mother of Kubja but she was discharged by the magistrate. Hira Nand died pending the appeal in this Court. Sadh Ram was married to Kubja sometime in 1940-41. The marriage between the appellant Kanwal Ram and Kubja is said to have taken place in September I 955. By this time the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had come into force and it prohibited the marriage of a Hindu during the lifetime of his or her spouse. The parties belong to a village in Himachal Pradesh among whom a customary form of marriage called Praina, is recognised. Both the marriages were performed according to that form. The marri- age of Kubja with Sadh Ram though originally challenged is now accepted. The only question is whether the second marri· age of Kubja, that is to say, between Kubja and Kanwal Ram, has been proved. The evidence would show that for a marriage in this form the following ceremonies arc essential. First some agnatic relation of the bridegroom goes to the bride's house and offers her "suhag". Thereafter, a relation of the bride who is called Prainu, brings her to the house of the bridegroom. There at the door of the house of the bridegroom coins arc put in a pot and then Puja and Katha (reading of holy scriptures) are held. The bride then picks up the pot and takes that to the family hearth and bows there. Then she makes obeisance to the father-in-law and the mother-in- law and other ciders in the family. Lastly, with feasting the cer1- monies end. The complainant Sadh Ram himself admitted that puja at the cntracc and bowing at the hearth by the bride after she had picked up the pot were compulsory ceremonies. He added, "If any one of these ceremonies is not performed, then the marriage is not complete." ·. Now all that the only witness who spok
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.