M. U. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of respondent-accused named one Batuk Hiralal Mehta of Bombay for the offences punishable under secs. 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was charged and tried by the learned Sessions Judge Bulsar at Navsari. The respondent who will hereafter be referred to as the accused was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Pardi on January 7 1972 in Criminal Case No. 826 of 1970 to stand his trial before the Court of Sessions for the said offences. ( 2 ) THE complaint was filed by the complainant one Nalini Baburao Kadam of Bombay who was aged about 24 on April 10 1970 The complainants case was that she was married to one Baburao Jenoba Kadam of Poona on June 22 1966 Said Kadam was addicted to drinking and gambling and squandered away his earnings. He resented her attempts to persuade him to give up his bad habits and on the contrary assaulted her and drove her away within two weeks of her marriage with him. She then went to Bombay and stayed with her widowed mother and two brothers named Vijay and Pramod. Her husband Kadam had published in the issue of August 12 1967 of Marathi daily paper Prabhat published in Poona a public notice Ex. 11 referred to by her in the complaint as a declaration stating that he was married with Nalini on 11-6-1966 but as Nalini had no desire to consumate the marriage with him she did not come at all to Poona from that day and on the contrary talked about the release from marriage; he was releasing her from marital obligations and it was customary in their caste to give divorce. According to her further say in the complaint she then thought of finding out some job or taking up training for some vocational line. She was introduced to one nurse who knew the accused and who took her to the accused in or about the month of April 1968 and acquainted him with her circumstances and aspirations. About that time she had filed an application under sec. She was introduced to one nurse who knew the accused and who took her to the accused in or about the month of April 1968 and acquainted him with her circumstances and aspirations. About that time she had filed an application under sec. 488 Criminal Procedure Code against Kadam for separate maintenance which the accused had advised her to withdraw and asked her to remain absent and the application came to be dismissed as she remained absent on the day of hearing. The accused then advised her to learn Marathi typing and appear at the S. S. C. examination so that she can take up a course of nursing. She agreed and the accused made all arrangements for her to join the typing-class and the S. S. C. classes. The accused purchased books and other necessary things for her study. The accused got her name admitted as Nalini B. Jadav being her maiden name telling her that as her husband had already declared separation that was the proper way. The accused escorted her occasionally in his car to Manjrekar classes for S. S. C. to which she was admitted some time in the month of April 1968. She appeared in the S. S. C. examination in March 1969 but failed. The accused then told her that he had built a house at Vapi where she should stay and suggested her to marry him. She asked for some time to consult her people meaning her brothers and mother who had by that time come to to know about their acquaintance. According to her her brothers agreed to the proposal and she had found the accused to be a kindly person to live with as husband. The accused then took her and her brother Pramod to Vapi situated in the State of Gujarat by the Surat Express an evening train which runs between Bombay and Surat on June 21 1969 In paragraph 9 of her complaint her averment is that on that night at Vapi the accused and herself went through a form of marriage and they garlanded each other. The accused assured her as a solicitor that the ceremonies performed were sufficient to constitute a valid marriage. Her brother Pramod was present. On the same night. he (the accused) cohabited with her at Vapi. The accused assured her as a solicitor that the ceremonies performed were sufficient to constitute a valid marriage. Her brother Pramod was present. On the same night. he (the accused) cohabited with her at Vapi. In paragraph 10 she says the returned to Bombay with her brother and again on July 21 1969 the accused took her to Vapi and cohabited with her at Vapi where she continued to stay thereafter. In paragraph 11 she says that she went to Bombay to appear at the S. S. C. examination to be held in October 1969 but the accused prevented her from appearing at the same examination and took her to a hotel on October 21 1969 saying that it was their marriage night and they should celebrate their marriage-night by cohabiting together. In paragraph 12 of her complaint she says that during her stay at Vapi she found one lady named Padmini visiting the accused at Vapi and going to Bombay with him. Their movements created a doubt in her mind about the relationship of Padmini with the accused. On inquiry the accused evaded a straight reply saying that she was his daughter. She learnt in December 1969 that Padmini was his wife. She has stated that she relied upon the tape-recorded conversation between the accused and the said Padmini which was in her possession and which she will produce at the proper time and place. (She has not produced it in her evidence ). In paragraph 13 of her complaint she says that in February 1970 the accused had come with a document to be signed by her Padmini and her mother. It was found to be document between Padmini referred to as an employer and the complainant Nalini referred to as an employee and she refused to sign it. She has stated that she would rely upon the photo stat copy of the writing (copy Ex. 16 ). It was found to be document between Padmini referred to as an employer and the complainant Nalini referred to as an employee and she refused to sign it. She has stated that she would rely upon the photo stat copy of the writing (copy Ex. 16 ). Ultimately she left Vapi some time in February 1970 and came to Bombay where she met the accused for his final decision regarding her and Padmini but the accused denied any such relationship with Padmini and promised that he would make a will bequeathing all his assets to her and told her that as Padmini had given him a notice for maintenance as a wife and as he had denied the same he wanted her to help him in the proceedings that Padmini may take against him. It was about this time that she had approached one advocate Mr. Barot in Bombay and acting under his advice she had a talk with the accused on the evening of March 18 1970 while driving in a motor-car with him from the Gateway of India to Colaba Sea Face in Bombay which was tape-recorded by her in the folds of her Sari. She then again consulted her advocate acquainted him with all the facts and was told by her advocate that she was duped. On these facts as stated in the complaint Ex. 19 she submitted that the accused had by deceit made her believe that she was married to the accused on June 21 1969 by going through a marriage ceremony which the accused fully knew did not constitute a lawfully valid marriage and did cohabit and had sexual intercourse with her at Vapi on diverse occasions and elsewhere and thereby committed the offence punishable under sec. 493 Indian Penal Code and secondly that the accused dishonestly and with fraudulent intention want through a marriage ceremony with her with the full knowledge that he was not lawfully married to her but making her believe that it was a valid marriage and thereby committed the offence punishable under sec. 496 Indian Penal Code. It was on the facts stated in the complaint (Ex. 19) that the process was issued against the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate who had on completion of the enquiry before him committed the accused to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial for the offences punishable under secs. 496 Indian Penal Code. It was on the facts stated in the complaint (Ex. 19) that the process was issued against the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate who had on completion of the enquiry before him committed the accused to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial for the offences punishable under secs. 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code. [ The Hobble Court after describing the facts and the background of the case further observed: ] ( 3 ) NOW the gravamen of the charge is that the accused who was a Solicitor and who was a Chief Labour Officer in the service of the Bombay Port Trust and had attained the age of 58 years at the time had induced complainant Nalini who was 24 by performing a form of marriage at Vapi on the night of June 91 1969 to become his wife and Nalini believed that she had become the wife of the accused on the relevant night at Vapi and it was under that belief that the accused induced her to cohabit with him and she surrendered her body to the accused. In order to convict the accused of this charge the evidence must be sufficiently clear to show that the accused had deceitfully induced a belief of lawful marriage in complainant Nalini and it was in such belief that she had cohabited with him on the relevant night at Vapi. It may be recalled that Nalini was a woman married to one Kadam according to the Hindu religious ceremonies some time in the year 1966. She was a mature woman of 24 years born and brought up in Bombay and belonged to a Kshatriya Maratha community. She had either left or deserted her husband Kadam or was driven out of the marital home at Poona only two weeks after her marriage with Kadam which was celebrated on June 22 1966 according to the Hindu religious rites referred to earlier. She had then returned to her mothers house in Bombay. She had two brothers Vijay and Pramod and a maternal uncle besides her widowed mother to look to for guidance. She wanted some avocation in life to keep her busy and to maintain herself. She had then returned to her mothers house in Bombay. She had two brothers Vijay and Pramod and a maternal uncle besides her widowed mother to look to for guidance. She wanted some avocation in life to keep her busy and to maintain herself. She had filed applications for maintenance against her husband Kadam and this was under the advice of her Advocates M/s. Chile and Gupte and appears to have been conscious of her legal rights and was out to secure her monetary position in life. This was the type of the woman who appears to have a mature thinking and who came from the humble strata of society in the sense of worldly possessions and who has impressed the learned Sessions Judge from his observation of her demeanour while in the witness-box as an intelligent woman whose evidence has to be examined in order to bring home the built to the accused person. This is not an ordinary charge of adulterly which we are called upon to examine. Nalinis husband Kadam is not the complainant. This is an unusual type of case in which a person is hauled up for the alleged offences punishable under secs. 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code by the complainant woman Nalini who was married and whose husband has not come out with a complaint against the accused but had filed a criminal complaint against Nalini and her brother Pramod subsequently under sec. 494 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code which came to be dismissed because the complainant husband had remained absent. Nalini in her complaint Ex. 19 which we have referred to earlier while making out a statement of the case does not refer to any particular form of marriage having been performed at Vapi. The complaint was drafted by a lawyer and this was after the lawyer had advised her to have a tape-recorded conversation between herself and the accused and which was recorded as planned. In paragraph 9 of the complaint what is stated merely is that the accused and herself went through a form of marriage and they garlanded each other. The form in which the marriage was per. formed appears to have been conveniently kept vague. In paragraph 9 of the complaint what is stated merely is that the accused and herself went through a form of marriage and they garlanded each other. The form in which the marriage was per. formed appears to have been conveniently kept vague. There is no mention in the complaint that the garlanding was done before the photo of Lord Rama or that they had bowed before the portrait of Lord Rama. But in her evidence Nalini has referred to the form of marriage they went through as Gandharva marriage what she calls a Gandharva marriage has been referred to in paragraph 4 of her evidence Ex. 10. According to her on 21-6-1969 the accused her bother Pramod and she herself went to the bungalow of the accused at Vapi from the Vapi railway station in the evening where Pramod had met them. The accused then decided to perform the rites of marriage between 8. 30 P. M. to 9. 00 P. M. The accused lighted the Ghee lamp before the photograph of Lord Rama and both of them stood in front of that photograph. The accused then garlanded her and asked her to garland him again by the same garland. The accused gave her a golden chain as a `mangalsutra. The accused then informed her that the marriage ceremony was over. Immediately a doubt was raised in her mind and she says she questioned the accused as to what was that sort of a marriage ceremony ? She says that the accused replied that it was a Gandharva ceremony of marriage and that as Dushyant and Shakuntala had contacted marriage in the same form there was no objection for them to undergo the same Crimean. She says she did not trust the accused when he spoke of the Gandharva ceremony. But the accused then told her that he was a Solicitor and that such marriage ceremony would lead to rightful marriage. She then trusted him. Such is the form of marriage which according to Nalini was undergone and such was the immediate reaction of Nalini a shrewd married woman that she was who had deserted her husband Kadam and who in spite of Kadams public notice Ex. 11 has taken out maintenance proceedings against Kadam. She then trusted him. Such is the form of marriage which according to Nalini was undergone and such was the immediate reaction of Nalini a shrewd married woman that she was who had deserted her husband Kadam and who in spite of Kadams public notice Ex. 11 has taken out maintenance proceedings against Kadam. It is difficult to accept her version that a simple answer from the accused resolved the doubt of one who knew what are the valid forms of a Hindu marriage. She then says that Pramod who was present at the ceremony had there after gone out of the house of the accused to 8 to Bombay. She says she then surrendered her body to the accused. It is difficult to accept that such an intelligent and shrewd woman that the complainant Nalini was and one who had the benefit of the advice of her two brothers a mother and a maternal uncle besides of some advocates earlier could have her doubt about the validity of the form of marriage resolved simply because the accused told her that it was a Gandharva form of ceremony as Dushyant and Shakuntala had contacted the marriage. It is too naive an explanation and a story to be true. Again it is amusing to hear Nalini say that she was being compared to Shakuntala and the accused to Dushyant and the ceremony as that in Gandharva marriage and that she simply accepted the say of the accused. Such all intelligent woman that the complainant was could certainly be erupted to have known what a Gandharva form of marriage is as also whether they filled in the character of Shakuntala and Dushyant and whether the ceremony of garlanding each other before the photograph of Lord Rama performed if any constituted Gandharva marriage. She well knew what was the Hindu marriage ceremony to be performed. She had married Kadam as aforesaid according to the strict Hindu religious ceremonies. She says that she herself felt doubt about the validity of the marriage. Even then she says she simply accepted the advice of the accused. She well knew what was the Hindu marriage ceremony to be performed. She had married Kadam as aforesaid according to the strict Hindu religious ceremonies. She says that she herself felt doubt about the validity of the marriage. Even then she says she simply accepted the advice of the accused. It is difficult to believe that a woman born and brought up in the aforesaid circumstances in a city like Bombay and to whom the advice of her advocates was freely available at all times and so also of her maternal uncle would be beguiled away by such an advice if any that was given by the accused as Nalini wants us to believe. We must say that say are not convinced about Nalinis version on the point. If is too good to be true. ( 4 ) AGAIN it is now well recognised that the Brahma form is the only one now left of the four approved forms of marriage namely Brahma Daiva Arsha and Prajapatya. The unapproved forms were Asura Gandharva Rakshasa and Paisacha. Asura form is the only one now left of the four unapproved forms. As vie find from a passage from Sir Dinshaw Mullas Hindu Law 13 Edition in paragraph 428 at page 464: The Gandharva marriage is the voluntary union of a youth and a damsel which springs from desire and sensual inclination. It may be noted that the essential marriage ceremonies are as much a requisite part of this form of marriage as of any other unless it is shown that some modification of those ceremonies has been introduced by custom in any particular community or caste. The Gandharva form is obsolete in many parts of the Union of India and it is not shown that it was not obsolete in Gujarat or that it was recognised even where such a form of marriage is recognized essential ceremonies of marriage namely invocation before the sacred file and Saptapadi are as much a part of the Gandharva form of marriage as of any other and it is not Nalinis case that any such ceremonies were performed and no custom introducing any modification of those ceremonies is pleaded or established. Now it may be recalled that Nalini knew that she was a married woman. She says that there was no divorce permissible by custom amongst the community of Maratha Kshatriya to which she belongs. Now it may be recalled that Nalini knew that she was a married woman. She says that there was no divorce permissible by custom amongst the community of Maratha Kshatriya to which she belongs. She says that even from the very first date of her introduction with the accused from October 1968 by some nurse the accused had promised to maintain her all throughout her life. The question then is can such a type of woman easily be said to have been beguiled by a there word of the accused that it was a valid form of marriage assuming it was used ? Much labour was devoted by Mr. Bhairaviya to point out that the accused was a Solicitor and therefore the complainant might have very likely accepted his advice. But the fact remain that she knew the accused since October 1968 she knew that the accused was not a practicing solicitor but was serving as the Chief Labour Officer of the Bombay Port Trust and was of highly advanced age of 58 years being 34 years older to her by any standard. Would it he safe to infer that such a woman who was a city girl would simply accept the word of the accused as a gospel truth because he had years back qualified himself to be a Solicitor? We must frankly say that we are not impressed by these arguments and we are not prepared to accept Nalinis version on the point. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly not accepted Nalinis evidence on the point. Our attention is not invited to any evidence on record which shows that the conclusion reached by the learned sessions Judge is palpably wrong or is based on an erroneous view of law. Furthermore we find that Nalinis version is that her brother Pramod was present at the time of the alleged ceremony which took place on that relevant night. Pramod was somehow not available to the prosecution for examination. The prosecution did not insist upon the examination of Pramod. Even before us Mr. Bhairaviya did not want Pramod to be examined. Significantly enough as admitted by Nalini in Paragraph 58 of her evidence she had not referred to the presence of Pramod at the time of her so-called marriage with the accused on 21-6-1969 in the entire tape talk transcript whereof is produced at Ex. 18. Even before us Mr. Bhairaviya did not want Pramod to be examined. Significantly enough as admitted by Nalini in Paragraph 58 of her evidence she had not referred to the presence of Pramod at the time of her so-called marriage with the accused on 21-6-1969 in the entire tape talk transcript whereof is produced at Ex. 18. We are thus left only with the highly unreliable interested testimony of Nalini. Her evidence bristles with contradictions evasive answers and distorted facts. She is shown to have been a scheming and intelligent woman unsafe to rely upon. Except for the highly involved laborious and well-planned out tape-recorded conversation between Nalini and accused recorded in the tape-record transcript of which is produced at Ex. 18 when Nalini attempted to take advantage of the predicament in which the accused had placed himself and out of which he thought he could wriggle out with the help of Nalini and which evidence is not sufficient and satisfactory as we shall presently examine there is no corroborative evidence on record to the undependable evidence of Nalini herself. As aforesaid prosecution did not examine Pramod and even now does not ask for his evidence to be recorded. Moreover what has been referred to as the tape-recorded conversation between the accused and Padmini who is shown to have been in continued good relationship with Nalini and which tape as stated in the complaint in paragraph 12 was in possession of Nalini and which she was to produce at the hearing has not been produced. If the tape-recording conversation between Padmini and the accused had been produced that would have gone a long way to enable us to disengage the truth from the falsehood. There is no explanation for the coming why Nalini did not produce the tape-recorded conversation between Padmini and the accused although it is established on record that she had good relations with Padmini at the time and Padmini was present in the Court below. ( 5 ) MR. Bhairaviya however made great effort to draw corroboration to Nalinis undependable evidence from the transcript of the tape-record produced at Ex. 18. He has invited our attention to certain answers which have been given by the accused to the questions put to him by Nalini. The conversation has been recorded in the form of questions and answers and covers 52 typed pages. 18. He has invited our attention to certain answers which have been given by the accused to the questions put to him by Nalini. The conversation has been recorded in the form of questions and answers and covers 52 typed pages. While appreciating it we must bear in mind that what we are called upon to examine is the state of mind of the accused at the time when the alleged deception was practiced upon the woman Nalini on the night of June 21 1969 It is the intention of the accused at that relevant point of time which has to be ascertained and that would supply the mens rea. We have also to consider whether the accused believed on the night of June 21 1969 that Nalini would accept the garlanding and their standing before the photograph of Lord Rama with the lighted ghee lamp in its front as a form of a valid or even Gandharva marriage assuming that any such ceremony was performed. We have also to find out whether in fact Nalini was at that time induced to believe that she was lawfully married to the accused by the alleged ceremony and whether she was induced to cohabit with the accused under such a belief. As aforesaid we are not prepared to accept Nalinis uncorroborated version on the point. Hers is the sole version on the point and it is highly unsatisfactory and is not dependable. It is true that whatever has taken place subsequently is relevant conduct and can certainly be looked into. But that could not give a clear indication of the working of the mind of the accused and the effect he caused on the mind of Nalini at the crucial time viz. on June 21 1969 when according to Nalini she was deceived in a belief that a valid marriage was performed and that was why she had surrendered her body to the accused. Again it has to be remembered that the tape-recording of the conversation was done in a particular background. At that time Nalini had good relations with Padmini. Nalini resided with Padmini at the Vapi bungalow of the accused from July 1969 to February 1970 and even thereafter their relation were cordial. Padmini was with Nalini during the committal proceedings It is to be remembered that Padmini was referred to by the accused in letter Ex. At that time Nalini had good relations with Padmini. Nalini resided with Padmini at the Vapi bungalow of the accused from July 1969 to February 1970 and even thereafter their relation were cordial. Padmini was with Nalini during the committal proceedings It is to be remembered that Padmini was referred to by the accused in letter Ex. 13 dated 29-9-1969 `saubhagyavanti and Nalini as Chiranjivi. Nalini was promised by the accused from the very first day of their introduction that she would be maintained all throughout her life by the accused. Again the psychology of the accused at the time when the taperecording was done has also an important bearing on the point. The accused had an European wife and two children born of that marriage who were all staying in England. He had some connection with Padmini who had occupied his Vapi bungalow and who had good relation with Nalini. Padmini had given notice to the accused for maintenance in which notice she had referred to Nalini as the mistress of the accused. Padmini had threatened to take legal action against the accused in the matter. Nalini was staying with her mother at about the time of the tape-recording conversation. Some telephone calls were being received by the accused threatening some action by Kadam. The accused was facing a three-pronged attack from Padmini Nalini and Kadam at the time. Accused was a lonely man about to retire from service. It was in this background that the tape-recording was maneuvered by Nalini under legal advice. Reverting to the transcript of the tape-recorded talk Ex. 18 we must say that there is no dispute that the tape-record of a former statement of the accused is a relevant statement and is admissible in evidence. There is no serious attempt made before us to show that the record has been tampered with. However we must approach this type of evidence with caution and must assess it in the light of all the circumstances in the case referred to earlier. From the transcript we find that there was a long drawn out conversation between the complainant Nalini and the accused running into 52 typed pages as aforesaid. There was a laborious and well-planned attempt to rope in the accused into making some sort of admission about the marriage between the two. From the transcript we find that there was a long drawn out conversation between the complainant Nalini and the accused running into 52 typed pages as aforesaid. There was a laborious and well-planned attempt to rope in the accused into making some sort of admission about the marriage between the two. The record also shows that Padmini was in the background of all this talk. The threatened legal action by Padmini and Kadam and the close relationship between Padmini and Nalini appear to have hovered around the minds eye of the accused during this conversation. The transcript shows that a question was put by Nalini to the accused that Padmini might not be knowing about their marriage but marriage between the accused the complainant had taken place in the presence of Lord Rama. The answer of the accused to the question was in the affirmative with a rider added as to whether she wanted to preserve such a tie which would bring her misery and separation and whether she would be able to bear it. Our attention was further invited to a question put in the same strain by Nalini which appears at page 9 of the transcript Ex. 18 in our paper-book. Relying on these questions and answers Mr. Bhairaviya urged that this was a case in which the accused had admitted in his conversation with Nalini that the marriage was performed before lord Rams portrait. But the answers of the accused were halting and with a mental reservation and not categorical when viewed as a whole. Again what is material for the purpose of deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused and in assessing the evidentiary value of this part of the questionnaire is that Nalini herself was expressing her doubts about the validity of such a form of marriage. The question still remains as to whether the accused by such ceremony viz. standing before the photograph of Lord Rama and the garlanding induced the complainant woman in a belief that the was a woman married to the complainant and that it was as a consequence of such belief that she cohabited with the accused. Was any such pretence necessary ? May be they might have stood before the portrait of Lord Rama. May be they garlanded each other. Was any such pretence necessary ? May be they might have stood before the portrait of Lord Rama. May be they garlanded each other. But that might as well have been for a psychological reason or effect to satisfy the complainant that she would continue to receive the protection of the accused during her life-time and to give her some standing in Vapi. That is in any event a probable view which cannot be ruled out in the instant case which we have to consider in the background of the facts aforesaid that the accused who was facing a three-pronged attack from Kadam Nalini and Padmini was trying to wriggle out of the peculiar predicament in which he had placed himself. We may here refer to another questionnaire at typed page 25 wherein the accused asked the question to Nalini as to whether the would protect the accused if Madhukar (maternal uncle of Nalini) and Kadam (Nalinis husband) would take legal action in league with each other and the answer of the complainant Nalini was in the affirmative. An answer was given to another question of Nalini by the accused expressing his desire that Nalini should save her and Nalini in reply assured him that she would. Another question put by the accused to Nalini was as to whether she was meeting any other male person. Still another answer to the question put by Nalini was that Padmini had usurped the possession of the Vapi Bungalow and wanted to involve both of them and safeguard her interest. Nalini was asked to read the notice of Padmini to the accused which referred to Nalini as a mistress The accused had then given a halting and evasive answer to Nalinis answer that she was a legally married wife of the accused. The accused then told the complainant that if she was to stay with him she had to take a divorce from Kadam otherwise Kadam can take any action. The accused then told the complainant that if she was to stay with him she had to take a divorce from Kadam otherwise Kadam can take any action. The accused had in answer to another question of Nalini (vide p. 233 of the paper book) told her that he was not going to tell a lie if asked about the relationship and would say that he had accepted her on 21st June and therefore he could not ill-treat her a statement which is not inconsistent with Nalinis status or reputation as a mistress of the accused who was promised at the time to be given Rs. 50/per month. These are the material questions and answers to which our attention has been invited. Considering the answers in the aforesaid background it appears that the accused was trying to wriggle out of a predicament. Admittedly on the very first day of introduction he had given an assurance to the complainant woman that he would maintain her for her life and they had lived at Vapi on the relevant night as man and woman which conduct is also consistent with Nalini being a mistress. Significantly enough the presence of Pramod is not referred to in the taped-talk. The tape-recorded conversation viewed cautiously and as a whole in the proper background aforesaid does not lend any assurance to the otherwise undependable sworn testimony of complainant Nalini. It cannot supply the much needed corroboration and leaves us in grave doubt about the truth of Nalinis version. We may here say that the defence theory that Nalini had not accompanied the accused to Vapi on June 21 1969 does not inspire much confidence as we shall later on consider. It appears to us that the accused and Nalini had gone together by the Surat Express on the relevant evening and had stayed overnight at the Vapi Bungalow of the accused. But there is no clear evidence to show that they had performed any marriage ceremony. Ram and Sita Dushyant and Shakuntala and Gandharva marriage theories and their elaboration come in for the first time at the well-planned elaborate conversation which was being stealthily tape-recorded under legal advice. It was not introduced in the complaint Ex. 19 or in the verification. Nalini says she did not even discuss the form of so-called marriage either at Bombay or at Vapi. It was not introduced in the complaint Ex. 19 or in the verification. Nalini says she did not even discuss the form of so-called marriage either at Bombay or at Vapi. It is doubtful whether there was any element of deceit in the garlanding ceremony if any. It is equally doubtful whether Nalini who had much earlier and frequently moved freely with the accused and visited hotels and restaurants in Bombay with him and was helped by him and promised to be maintained all throughout her life ever needed any further assurance or a sort of marriage form on June 21 1969 to surrender her body on that night to the accused who was given to sex indiscreetly and wantonly. She appears to have lived as his mistress in his keeping at Vapi. ( 6 ) AGAIN it is clearly brought out in evidence that both the accused and complainant were unhappy persons. Complainant was a young woman of 24 staying away from her husband Kadam with whom she had married and for reasons not clearly brought out on record. May be she was deserted by Kadam or may be she had deserted Kadam. But the fact remains that she had returned to the home of her widowed mother and she was in search of some avocation to eke out her existence. The accused was a lonely person of advanced age and a high-placed officer who had married a European wife and had children born of that marriage who were all living away from him in England as appears from the record. The accused was living in Bombay all alone by himself. It is not unreasonable to take the view that both the complainant and the accused knew that they cannot marry legally as long as their spouses lived or until they had got legal divorce and the needy Nalini lived and moved with the accused as his mistress in comfort. It is significant that the accused was never invited to the house of Nalinis mother in Bombay even after June 21 1969 nor was Nalini invited to the Bombay house of the accused. Both of them had met together and visited hotels and restaurants frequently from October 1968 onwards. There was a marked difference in age between the two Nalini being aged 24 and the accused 58. Both of them had met together and visited hotels and restaurants frequently from October 1968 onwards. There was a marked difference in age between the two Nalini being aged 24 and the accused 58. Before June 21 1969 the accused was already giving some financial help to Nalini. It was in this situation that the relationship between the two which had started with an introduction by a nurse some time in the middle of the year 1968 when Nalini was given a promise by the accused that he would maintain her throughout her life had developed into a sort of relationship of a married man living with married woman who was at that time not divorced according to law or whose divorce was doubtful in spite of her husbands public notice Ex. 11. Certainly the conduct of the accused is reprehensible. He comes out in the evidence as a man given to sex indiscreetly and wantonly. He stands condemned morally. But the conduct and character of the accused cannot be the sole consideration in reaching a conclusion as to whether the accused had deceitfully induced the complainant woman to believe that legal marriage was performed and that on such a belief the woman was induced to cohabit with him. In our opinion such a conclusion cannot be reached with any amount of reasonable certainty having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case considered earlier. ( 7 ) AS aforesaid in our opinion it is difficult to reach a conclusion that the accused had induced a belief in the mind of complainant Nalini that a lawful marriage was performed on the night of June 21 1969 in the bungalow of the accused at Vapi. The garlanding by each other might have been done although it is doubtful. But that might as well have been done by the accused by way of or creating a psychological satisfaction in the mind of Nalini that her future was being safeguarded as a permanent mistress in the house of the accused and she dedicated herself. But having regard to the nature of the alleged ceremony it cannot be treated as satisfactory evidence to show that the accused had induced in Nalini a belief that she was a woman lawfully married to the accused. But having regard to the nature of the alleged ceremony it cannot be treated as satisfactory evidence to show that the accused had induced in Nalini a belief that she was a woman lawfully married to the accused. An experienced and an intelligent woman that complainant Nalini was and one who was born and brought up in a city like Bombay cannot ordinarily be taken to have been beguiled into a belief by the simple process of mutual garlanding before the photo of Lord Rama in a summary manner that she was lawfully married to the accused and to have been induced to cohabit with the accused under such a belief. The evidence of Nalini is a highly interested testimony which bristles with many inconsistencies contradictions and unnatural statements and receives no corroboration from any material evidence or circumstance. The tape-recorded conversation has to be considered in the background of the predicament in which the accused found himself at the time and from which he was trying to wriggle out. It is the working of the mind of the accused and his intention at the time of the alleged ceremony of mutual garlanding before the photo of Lord Rama on the night of June 21 1969 that is material and can supply mens rea and not his mind at the time when the tape-recording was done or conversation was recorded although that is also to be taken into account. Even if we do not draw any adverse inference against the prosecution case for non-examination of Nalinis brother Pramod who was present we must say that no case was made out for examination of Pramod at this appellate stage. On the contrary the learned Assistant Government Pleader did not ask for such evidence to be recorded. Apart from that we have on our own considered the propriety of examining Pramod in this Court or in the Sessions Court by way of additional evidence and we do not find that his evidence which is bound to be highly interested testimony would afford any corroboration to the evidence of Nalini mere particularly so when as admitted by Nalini herself Pramods name or presence at Vapi is not referred to in the long drawn out and well planned labourious tape-recorded conversation between Nalini and the accused on the evening of March 18 1970 The evidence in the shape of Ex. 16 which was a document to be signed by Nalini and Padmini purporting to create a sort of relationship as between an employee and which was given to Nalini by the accused on 22-2-1970 appears to have been a device employed by the accused to save himself from the criminal action likely to be taken by Kadam but that cannot supply any corroboration to the evidence of Nalini as regards the ingredients of the offences in question and cannot carry the prosecution case any further. It is a neutral circumstance at the highest. The fact most damaging to the prosecution case is the admission of Nalini in para 30 of her evidence that right from the time when she was first introduced to the accused may be in April 1968 or October 1968 the accused had promised to maintain her during her life-time. This is not inconsistent with the defence theory that Nalini was a mistress. Having regard to the antecedents of Nalini who is a city born young but mature woman she must be imputed with reasonable commonsense to know what was happening around her. She could not have been induced into a belief that the summary form of ceremony constituted so-called Gandharva marriage and it brought about valid and lawful marriage and to surrender her body to the accused under any such belief. It is difficult to believe that the accused and Nalini both of whom were married and had their spouses living filled in or believed that they filled in the character of Dushyant and Shakuntala. The learned Sessions Judge had found Nalini to be an intelligent young woman had in our opinion she was also a shrewd woman who was conscious of her legal rights and remedies and to whom legal and elderly advice was freely available and of which she made profitable use as observed earlier. On an entire resume of the evidence on record we must say that in any view of the matter no case is made out to show that the relevant conclusions reached by the learned Sessions Judge are palpably wrong or are based on an erroneous view of the law or that his decision has resulted in grave injustice. In such a situation we are reluctant to interfere with the conclusions reached by the learned Sessions Judge. In such a situation we are reluctant to interfere with the conclusions reached by the learned Sessions Judge. It is well settled that if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on that the basis of the evidence on record then the view in support of the acquittal of the accused should be preferred. The fact that the High Court is inclined to take a different view of the evidence on record in a given case is not sufficient to interfere with the order of acquittal (vide Khedu Mohton and others v. State of Bihar A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 66 ). ( 8 ) WE must say that we have examined the evidence with more than ordinary care and scrutiny more so having regard to the fact the Government was represented by a junior Law Officer. We must also say that although the parties had sought and were given an opportunity to purge themselves of their moral wrong if any and although Mr. Bhatt on behalf of the complainant had made a statement before us that the accused has atoned for whatever he had done and the complainant therefore did not harbour any resentment against the respondent and further that the complainant woman has recently obtained divorce from Kadam and is about to re-marry we have examined the ease strictly on merits and in our considered opinion no case for our interference against the order of acquittal is made out. ( 9 ) IT is needless to repeat that the conduct of the accused which we have found to be reprehensible and sexy and for which no further comment is necessary cannot per se lead us to a finding of guilt of the accused in the matter of commission of alleged offences under secs. 493 and 496 of the I. P. Code. In any case it cannot be decisive of matter. The prosecution has failed to prove the relevant necessary ingredients of the said offences. In any case two views are possible and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and we do not find it proper to interfere in this acquittal appeal which thus fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .