JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is on appeal u/s 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal of the Respondents of charges u/s 495 and 495/109 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra (Respondent No. 1) is said to have been married to one Sailabala. Sailabala, the first wife is alive. By suppressing the fact of such marriage, Prafulla got married again to the Appellant Rajalaxmi. It was alleged by the Appellant that she and Prafulla lived together for some time, but it transpired that Prafulla had a previously married wife living and when the Appellant started making further enquiries, Prafulla, who works as on Advocate's clerk, came away from the village and started living within the town of cuttack along with the first wife. The Appellant and her father accosted Prafulla at Cuttack. A dispute followed and one Sri Sunakar Jena, on Advocate, with whom Prafulla is said to be working as a clerk, undertook to make a settlement. In the meantime, the Appellant gave birth to a child and as she found that Sri Jena was not taking any steps, she was forced to file the complaint. Prafulla was charged for the offence u/s 495 while the three others who,are respectively Prafulla's sister, brother and the Barakarta in the second marriage, were charged u/s 495/109 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defence was one of denial of both the marriages and the relations and Barakarta of Prafulla took the plea that they had been falsely implicated. In support of the prosecution case, both oral and documentary evidence were adduced. The complainant examined herself. Her father was examined as p.w. 5. Two co-villagers of Prafulla were examined as p.ws. 7 and 8. The voters list a letter by the Barakarta (Respondent No. 4) to the father of the complainant (p.w. 5) were also produced. Admissions of Prafulla and his brother (a CD-accused) in previous litigations were also exhibited. A brother of the alleged first wife was also examined to support the prosecution story. 4. The learned Trial Judge accepted the complainant's claim of marriage to Prafulla, but found that the prosecution had failed to establish the first marriage. In view of such finding he acquitted the Respondents. 5. The offence u/s 495 of the Indian Penal Code is on aggravated form of the offence u/s 494 thereof. 4. The learned Trial Judge accepted the complainant's claim of marriage to Prafulla, but found that the prosecution had failed to establish the first marriage. In view of such finding he acquitted the Respondents. 5. The offence u/s 495 of the Indian Penal Code is on aggravated form of the offence u/s 494 thereof. Section 494 of the Code provides: Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 495 of the Code provides: Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The point for consideration, therefore, is as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish the two marriages, that is marriage of Prafulla with Sailabala and marriage of Prafulla with the complainant during the life time of Sailabala. As has just been indicated, the learned Trial Judge accepted the prosecution case in regard to the second aspect. Counsel for the Respondents seriously disputes that finding and contends that the learned Trial Judge should have come to find that the prosecution had equally failed to establish that marriage. Mr. Mohapatra for the complainant-Appellant has contended that the first marriage had been established and I should record such a finding. Mr. Kar on the other side has taken the stand that the finding of the learned Trial Judge regarding the second marriage should be vacated. 6. Before dealing with the offence, I think it appropriate to indicate the law applicable to this case. Parties are admittedly Brahmins. There is no clear evidence as to when the first marriage took place. Prafulla's age has been given as 33 in 1972. In that view of the matter, Counsel for both sides have indicated to me that Prafulla's marriage can be assumed to have taken place after 1955, when the Hindu Marriage Act; 25 of 1955, came into force. The second marriage is claimed to be of the year 1969. Prafulla's age has been given as 33 in 1972. In that view of the matter, Counsel for both sides have indicated to me that Prafulla's marriage can be assumed to have taken place after 1955, when the Hindu Marriage Act; 25 of 1955, came into force. The second marriage is claimed to be of the year 1969. I shall, therefore, proceed on the footing that both the marriages are post-Act marriages. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides: Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage: (1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party there to. (2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. The Supreme Court had occasion to examine the law on the point its three cases. Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, ; Kanwal Ram and Others Vs. The Himachal Pradesh Admn., and Priya Bala v. Suresh Chandra A.I. R. 1971 S.C. 1153. In the first case, the Court held that a marriage is not proved unless essential ceremonies required for its solemnization are proved to have been performed. In the second case Kanwal Ram and Others Vs. The Himachal Pradesh Admn. the Court found that the marriage had to be in the form known as Praina, which was customarily recognised in Himachal Pradesh to which parties belonged. The Court said: The evidence would show that for a marriage in this A form the following ceremonies are essential. First some agnatic relation of the bridegroom goes to the bride's house and offers her 'suhag'. There after, a relation of the bride who is called prianu, brings her to the house of the bridegroom. There at the door of the house of the bridegroom coins are 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 elders in the family. Lastly, with feasting the ceremonies end.... 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 elders in the family. Lastly, with feasting the ceremonies end.... On on analysis of the evidence, the Court found that these ceremonies had not been established to bave been performed and, therefore, the claim of marriage was not acceptable. In the last of these cases Priya Bala v. Suresh Chandra AIR 1971 S.C. 1153 , the Court refused to accept on admission of the accused that he had contracted a second marriage to be evidence of marriage and looked for proof of solemnization of the second marriage in accordance with the essential religious rites applicable to the parties as a condition precedent for conviction for bigamy. My learned brother Panda, J, in the case of Bhama Dei v. Panu Tanti 1972 (2) C.W.R. 1318, dealing with a case of bigamy held that proof of solemnization of second marriage in accordance with the essential religious rites applicable to the parties is a must for a conviction for bigamy and mere admission by accused that he contracted a second marriage is not enough. In the case of Srimati Radiani Dei v. Nagi alias Pravakar Mohapatra 1972 (2) C.W.R. 1886, I had also occasion to deal with a case u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It was found that p.w. 3 had stated that he was a witness to Saptapadi and therefore, it was assumed that Saptapadi was a necessary ceremony for completion of the marriage. 7. The evidence in regard to the first marriage is not sumptuous. The complainant has rest contended by relying upon certain admissions of the accused and his brother and by examining a brother of the alleged first wife in regard to the claim of second marriage, the complainant, her father arid two of the neigbbours of Prafulla nave been examined. A photograph and certain other documents have been exhibited. There is no doubt about the position that unless both the marriages are established along with the fact of concealment as provided for in Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge cannot be established. I think it appropriate, therefore, to examine whether there has been a second marriage as alleged in view of the fact that direct evidence has been led. 8. I think it appropriate, therefore, to examine whether there has been a second marriage as alleged in view of the fact that direct evidence has been led. 8. The oral evidence in regard to the second marriage consists of the evidence of the complainant, the priest (p.w. 4), complainant's father (p.w. 5) and two co-villagers of Prafulla p.ws. 7 and 8 respectively. The complainant and her father have given details of the second marriage. ' They have, however, not referred to the ceremonies. p.w.4 claims to be the priest. In evidence in-chief, he stated that one Balaram Pandit, a nephew of his, worked as the priest on the groom's side while he acted on the bride's side. He further stated: There was Saptapadi in the marriage and also the Bandapana. In cross-examination, it has been elicited from the witness thus: Saptapadi means tying a duster of seven threads wrapped with Barakoli patra and duba (grass) and such type of Saptapadi and Bandapana were done by my nephew Balaram. I had no sufficient knowledge about this Saptapadi and Bandapana. Bandapana was done by the female folk in the room where the marriage was performed. Balaram uttered all the mantras in marriage and I had not uttered any mantras. I do not remember the mantras which were uttered by Balaram at the time of marriage. I cannot give the meaning of the mantras which were uttered by Balaram. Balaram is alive. According to p.w. 4, therefore, Saptapadi was a necessary ceremony for completion of the marriage. His evidence also indicates that Balaram was the real priest. Balaram though alive has not been examined. p.w. 6 stated in a general way that the formalities of marriage were observed Saptapadi being a part of the ceremony for completion of the marriage as required u/s 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act has thus not been established to have been performed. In view of this position, it becomes difficult: for me to accept the finding of the learned Trial Judge that the second marriage had be en established. 9. As already indicated, if the second marriage is not established, the main ingredient of the offence u/s 495 of the Indian Penal Code would be lacking and therefore, the charge u/s 495 of the Code cannot be found to have been established. 9. As already indicated, if the second marriage is not established, the main ingredient of the offence u/s 495 of the Indian Penal Code would be lacking and therefore, the charge u/s 495 of the Code cannot be found to have been established. It is unnecessary in that view of the matter to enter into a discussion about the alleged first marriage. The burden to prove both the marriages as ingredients of the offence u/s 495 of the Indian Penal Code certainly lay on the prosecution and the prosecution having failed to establish the second marriage, the acquittal passed by the trial Court cannot be successfully assailed. 10. I would accordingly dismiss this appeal and uphold the judgment of acquittal. Final Result : Dismissed