JUDGMENT Bartley, J. - The Petitioner in this case was convicted under sec. 494 / 109 of the Indian Penal Code, that is, for intentionally aiding a woman, whose husband was living, to marry in a case in which that marriage was void by reason of its having taken place during the life-time of her lawful husband. The Rule was issued upon the ground that the finding did not make out an offence. The factum of the first marriage is undisputed. With regard to the alleged second marriage, the only evidence before the Court was in the shape of an alleged admission by the Petitioner that he married the woman and the statement of a single witness to the effect that he was present at the marriage. Now such evidence is entirely insufficient to establish that the Petitioner went through a formal marriage with the woman. 2. Again in order to convict of abetment of an offence under sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code which is the charge in the present case, it must be found on the facts that the convicted person intentionally aided the woman in the commission of that offence. The only evidence on the record to show that the Petitioner knew that the woman was previously married is the statement of a single witness that he was present when the second marriage was proposed and that he then protested, not to the Petitioner but to the Petitioner's father, that the girl was already married. It is clear of course that this is no proof that the accused knew that she was previously married or that the statement, if made, must have been taken as a proof. 3. On these material points, therefore, the evidence fails to establish the elements necessary to a conviction under sec. 494 / 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. The conviction of the Petitioner and the sentence passed upon him is set aside and he will be acquitted and discharged from his bail. The fine, if paid, will be refunded. Roxburgh, J. I agree.