Judgment:
ORDER
Maithli Sharan, J.
1. This criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401, Cr. P.C. arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambah, District-Morena, dated 24.3.1995 in Cr. Case No. 1183/86, convicting the appellant/petitioner for the offence under Section 494, I.P.C. and sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and the judgment dated 10.2.1998 passed by the learned Third Addl. Session Judge, Morena, in Cr. Appeal No. 28/95, confirming the order of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus : The respondent No. 2 - Smt. Pushpa Devi, alleging herself to be the wife of the petitioner Ram Sanehi, filed a complaint in the Trial Court that she was the legally married wife of the petitioner, who used to beat her off and on and used to demand dowry from her parents. It was further alleged that the petitioner had turned her out of the house and later on performed second marriage with one lady Sona, daughter of Ayodhya Singh, of village-Mirjapur, District - Jalon (U.P.). On this basis the respondent No. 2, Smt. Pushpa Devi, alleged in the complaint that the petitioner Ram Sanehi had committed the offence of Bigamy under Section 494, I.P.C. and he should be convicted and sentenced for the same. She examined herself and her witnesses in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The learned Trial Court after carefully perusing the evidence adduced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the offence of Bigamy had been committed by the petitioner. It, therefore, convicted the petitioner for the same and sentenced as aforesaid. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge but it was also dismissed as referred to above.
3. Now the petitioner has moved this criminal revision against the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. I have heard the learned Counsel on both the sides and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
4. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the offence of Bigamy has to be strictly proved and unless that is done, no conclusion could be arrived at regarding the performance of the second marriage. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention mainly to the statement of complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi (P.W. 1) and her father Lakhan Singh (P.W. 2). Both these witnesses have deposed baldly that the petitioner Ram Sanehi had contracted a second marriage. Neither they had stated anything regarding the performance of 'Saptapadi' nor any other customary rituals prevalent in their community concerning the marriage. They have simply vary sweepingly deposed that the petitioner Ram Sanehi had contracted a second marriage with one lady Sona, daughter of Ayodhya Singh, I am of the view that this evidence simplicitor would not go to connect the petitioner with the crime in question. Proof of ceremony of 'Saptapadi', or if the customary rights or usage governing the parties are otherwise different then their proof is very essential to be given by the party asserting the commission of the second marriage, and unless that is done, no inference could be drawn that the petitioner and the alleged lady Sona, who were living together, had contracted a second marriage. The inference as to the performance of the ceremonies could not be drawn either.
5. In view of the above legal position, since there is lack of strict proof of Bigamy alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, I am afraid he could not be implicated with the crime in question. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts below are set aside.