Judgment.- The question that arises for consideration in these two revision cases is whether in a prosecution under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, it is incumbent upon the complainant to establish that both the marriages pleaded or alleged by him or her were performed in accordance with the religious rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Hindu Law governing the parties. The material facts giving rise to the two revision cases lie in a narrow compass and may be briefly stated: 2. A-1 to A-10 in C.C. No. 323 of 1976 on the file of the Second Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Eluru, were prosecuted for offences punishable under section 494 and section 494 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, on a private complaint filed by Kakarala Seetha Devi (P.W. 11). A-3 and A-4 are parents of A-1. A-1 is the husband of P.W. 11. A-2 is the alleged second wife of A-1. A-5 and A-6 are parents of A-2. A-7 and A-8 are sisters of A-1. A-9 is the maternal uncle of A-2 while A-10 is the wife of A-9. 3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W. 11, daughter of P.W. 12, was married to A-1 on 28th May, 1969, that a female child was born to their wedlock on 31st October, 1970, that both of them lived together till 1st November, 1971, when P.W. 11 was sent away to her parents’ house as P.W. 12 could not present a motor-cycle demanded by A-1, that A-1 married A-2 in Pandurangaswamy Temple situate at Eluru, on 18th October, 1975 at 8-30 p.m., that A-3 to A-10 abetted the second marriage, that ever since the marriage, A-1 and A-2 have been living together as husband and wife and that an unsuccessful attempt was made by A-3, the father of A-1, to purchase peace with P.W. 11 and her parents. 4. A-7, A-8 and A-10 were discharged by the learned Magistrate under section 245, Criminal Procedure Code, and a charge under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against A-1 and A-2, while a charge under section 494 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against A-3 to A-6 and A-9. In support of the case of the prosecution as many as fourteen witnesses were examined. P.Ws. In support of the case of the prosecution as many as fourteen witnesses were examined. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 deposed to the marriage between A-1 and P.W. 11, while P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 deposed to the alleged second marriage of A-1 with A-2. P.Ws. 3, 7 and 10 deposed to the living of A-1 and A-2 together at Peddapadu as husband and wife ever since the date of the alleged marriage between the two. P.Ws. 3, 5 to 8, 11, 12 and 13 deposed to the unsuccessful mediation of the dispute between the two parties. P.W. 14, a purohit by profession deposed to observance of the customary rites and ceremonies at marriages performed against members of ‘kamma’ community to which the parties belong. 5. The plea of the accused was one of denial of the alleged second marriage between A-1 and A-2. A plea of alibi was also put forward by A-1, A-3 and A-4, according to whom they attended the obsequies of the father-in-law of A-7 at Duggirala on 19th October, 1975. During his examination under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, A-1 however admitted having married P.W. 11. Four witnesses were examined by the accused. While D.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 were examined in support of the plea of alibi, D.W. 2, a trustee of Panduranga Swamy Temple situate at Eluru, deposed that no marriage took place in the temple on 19th October, 1975. 6. The claim of P.Ws. 1 and 2, that they attended both the marriages did not find acceptance with the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, however, relying upon the testimony of P.Ws. 3 to 14, and rejecting that of D.Ws. 1 to 4, found that A-1 had married A-2 in Pandurangaswamy Temple on 19th October, 1975 during the subsistence of his marriage with P.W. 11, that A-3 to A-6 abetted the second marriage, that the second marriage was celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form and that except attending the second marriage. A-9 did not take any active part in the second marriage. In the result, A-1 and A-2 were convicted under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code while A-3 to A-6 were convicted under section 494 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. A-9 did not take any active part in the second marriage. In the result, A-1 and A-2 were convicted under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code while A-3 to A-6 were convicted under section 494 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, A-3 to A-4 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each, while A-2, A-5 and A-6 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Magistrate, A-1, A-3 and A-4 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1978 while A-2, A-5 and A-6 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1978 in the Court of Sessions, West Godavari Division at Eluru. Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, by a common judgment. Criminal Revision Case No. 294 of 1978 preferred by A-1, A-3 and A-4 and Criminal Revision Case No. 295 of 1978 preferred by A-2, A-5 and A-6 arise out of the common judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge at Eluru. 7. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the parties being Hindus and governed by the Hindu Law it was incumbent upon the complainant to prove that both the marriages pleaded by her were solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies obtaining in the community to which the parties belong, that such proof of the marriage of A-1 with P.W. 11 was wanting in this case, that there was, therefore, no valid subsisting marriage between A-1 and P.W. 11, when A-1 married A-2 and that the convictions of A-1 to A-6 were liable to be set aside. 8. In a prosecution of an accused person for bigamy under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, the following essential ingredients should be established: (1) that the accused had already married some person, (2) that the accused married another person, (3) that the husband or wife to whom the person was first married, as the case may be, was alive on the date of the second marriage and (4) that the second marriage was void by reason of its taking place during the life time of the first spouse of the accused. 9. 9. The cardinal principle that a person is presumed to be innocent until he or she is proved to be guilty equally applies to cases ‘of bigamy with the same rigour and strictness as it applies to other criminal cases, and, therefore, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish all the ingredients. 10. Though section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, making bigamy an offence, has been on the statute book since 1860, bigamous or polygamous marriages amongst Hindus were not attracted by section 494. Indian Penal Code, as such marriages under the Hindu Penal Code, is applicable to a second marriage Law were valid and that section 494, Indian which is void by reason of its taking place during the lifetime of the other spouse of the first marriage. It is only after the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, by virtue of section 17 thereof a second marriage of a Hindu during the lifetime of his first spouse is declared to be void. 11. Before referring to the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 5 of the Act lays down the conditions to be fulfilled in a marriage between any two Hindus, one of the conditions being that neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage. Section 7 dealing with ceremonies for a Hindu marriage runs thus: "(1) A Hindu marriage may be solomnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. (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 fee seventh step is taken." Section 11 deals with void marriages. One of the conditions, if contravened, which makes a marriage solemnized after the commencement of the Act null and void, is, if any party thereto has a spouse living at the time of the marriage. One of the conditions, if contravened, which makes a marriage solemnized after the commencement of the Act null and void, is, if any party thereto has a spouse living at the time of the marriage. Section 17 of the Act reiterating the position and providing for punishment of bigamy, runs thus: "Any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code shall apply accordingly." Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code may also be usefully extracted: "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." 12. In Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and another v. The State of Maharashtra and another1, the question arose whether in a prosecution for bigamy under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, it was necessary to establish that the second marriage was duly performed in accordance with the essential religious rites applicable to the form of marriage gone through. The first appellant in the said case was convicted for an offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, for going through a marriage which was held to be void by reason of its taking place during the lifetime of his first wife. It was urged on his behalf that it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the alleged second marriage had been duly performed in accordance with the essential religious rites. On the other hand, it was contended by the State that for the commission of the offence under section 494, Indian Penal Code, it was not necessary that the second marriage should be a valid one and a person going through any form of marriage during the lifetime of his first wife would be guilty of the offence. On the other hand, it was contended by the State that for the commission of the offence under section 494, Indian Penal Code, it was not necessary that the second marriage should be a valid one and a person going through any form of marriage during the lifetime of his first wife would be guilty of the offence. Rejecting the contentions of the State, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows: "Prima facie, the expression ‘whoever..........marries’ must mean ‘whoever............marries validly or whoever........marries and whose marriage is a valid one’ If the marriage is not a valid one, according to the law applicable to the parties, no question of its being void by reason of its taking place during the life of the husband or wife of the person surviving arises. If the marriage is not a valid marriage, it is no marriage in the eye of law. The bare fact of a man and a woman living as husband and wife does not, at any rate, normally give them the status of husband and wife even though they may hold themselves out before society as husband and wife and the society treates them as husband and wife." 13. Again, while interpreting the word ‘solemnized’ occurring in section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, their Lordships stated: "The word ‘solemnize’ means, in connection with a marriage, ‘to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form’, according to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. It follows, therefore, that unless the marriage is ‘celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form’ it cannot be said to be ‘solemnized. It is, therefore, essential for the purpose of section 17 of the Act, that the marriage to which section 494, Indian Penal Code, applies on account of the provisions of the Act, should have been celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form. Merely going through certain ceremonies with the intention that the parties be taken to be married, will not make the ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by any established custom." 14. Merely going through certain ceremonies with the intention that the parties be taken to be married, will not make the ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by any established custom." 14. After referring to the passage in Mulla’s Hindu Law, 12th Edition at page 615, dealing with essential ceremonies to be performed for a valid marriage, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, on the evidence adduced in the case, held that the prosecution had neither established that the essential ceremonies had been performed nor that the performance of the essential ceremonies had been abrogated by the custom governing the community to which the parties belonged. In this view, it was held that the prosecution in that case had failed to establish that the alleged second marriage had been performed in accordance with the requirements of section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 15. In Kanwal Ram and others v. The Himachal Pradesh Administration1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in the earlier decision: (1) that in a prosecution for bigamy the second marriage had not only to be proved as a fact, but also it must be proved that the necessary ceremonies had been performed. It was contended in the said case that an admission made by the accused regarding the second marriage was conclusive of the fact of the second marriage having taken place and without any other evidence a conviction could be based on such admission. Rejecting the contention their Lordships observed thus: “........It is clear that in law such admission is not evidence of the fact of the second marriage having taken place. In a bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact, that is to say, the ceremonies constituting it must be proved: Express v. Pitambur Singh2, Express v. Kallu3, Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice (35th edition), Article 3796. In Kallu’s case3, and Mortis v. Miller4, it has been held that admission of marriage by the accused is not evidence of it for the purpose of proving marriage in an adultery or bigamy case......” In Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh5, the appellant therein filed a complaint against the respondent, her husband, in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Alipurduar on 11th April, 1963 alleging that he had committed an offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Her case was that the respondent had married her in or about 1948 according to the Hindu rites, that both of them lived together as husband and wife, but that some time before the date of the complaint the respondent began to ill-treat her with the result that she had to reside with her mother and her brother, that the respondent illegally married one Sandhya Rani as his second wife on 31st May, 1962, that they had been living together as husband and wife, that the second marriage having taken place during the subsistence of her marriage with the respondent was void and that the respondent, was, therefore, guilty of an offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The plea of the respondent was one of denial not only of the alleged second marriage, but also of the alleged first marriage with the appellant. The learned Magistrate found that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was established. On the question of the alleged second marriage, the learned Magistrate, notwithstanding the meagre evidence adduced in that behalf, held that the respondent had married Sandhya Rani while the appellant was still alive. The finding of the learned Magistrate was based upon the respondent’s admission of the second marriage. In the result, the respondent was convicted by the learned Magistrate. On appeal by the respondent, the learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri, hold that the evidence did not establish that the essential ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage had been performed either in the case of marriage claimed to have taken place between the appellant and the respondent or in respect of the alleged second marriage with Sandhya Rani. In that view, the conviction of the respondent was set aside by the Sessions Judge. On appeal by the appellant, the Calcutta High Court, however, differed from the finding of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the invalidity of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent and held that the evidence established that a valid marriage, according to the Hindu law, by which the parties were governed, had taken place between the appellant and the respondent. But, regarding the second marriage, the High Court agreed with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the essential ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage had not been proved to have taken place. But, regarding the second marriage, the High Court agreed with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the essential ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage had not been proved to have taken place. In that view, the order of acquittal of the respondent was confirmed by the High Court. Admittedly, according to the law prevalent amongst the parties in the said case, Homa and Sapthapadhi were the essential rites to be performed to constitute a valid marriage. It was also conceded that there was no specific evidence as to the performance of Sapthapadhi and Homa in the case of the alleged marriage of the respondent with Sandhya Rani. The only evidence was that of the priest who claimed to have officiated at the marriage of the respondent and Sandhya Rani. He merely deposed that the marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu rites and he did not state anything more than that. On behalf of the appellant, it was urged before their Lordships of the Supreme Court that when once the priest had given evidence to the effect that the marriage between the respondent and Sandhya Rani had been performed, it should follow that all the essential ceremonies necessary to constitute a valid marriage must be presumed to have been performed, that, in any event, when there was evidence to show that the marriage, as of fact, had taken place, the presumption was that it had taken place according to the law and that in view of the respondent’s admission of the second marriage with Sandhya Rani, no further proof or validity of it would arise for consideration. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected all the contentions. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected all the contentions. After adverting to and reiterating the principles laid down in the two earlier decisions of the Court, their Lordships held that the prosecution had to prove that the alleged second marriage had been duly performed in accordance with the essential religious rites applicable to the form of marriage gone through by the parties, that the said marriage must be a valid one according to the law applicable to the parties and that if the alleged second marriage was not a valid one, according to the law applicable to the parties, it would not be void by reason of its taking place during the life of the husband or the wife of the person marrying so as to attract section 494, Indian Penal Code, and admission of the marriage by the accused was no evidence of the marriage for the purpose of proving the offence of bigamy or adultery. It may be noted that in all the three cases decided by the Supreme Court, the validity of the second marriage with reference to it’s performance with the necessary religious rites applicable to the form of marriage gone through by the parties was considered. Also in the two later cases, the admissions of the second marriage by the concerned accused was held to be no evidence of it for the purpose of proving the marriage in a case of adultery or bigamy. In my opinion, the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in respect of the second marriage would equally govern the first marriage pleaded by the complainant and admission of the same, if any, by the accused. 16. In Gopal Anant Musalgaonkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, a single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, after noticing the two later cases decided by the Supreme Court, observed thus: "Though the holding in these cases was with reference to second marriage, but the same would be true with regard to the first marriage, because still if it is proved that there was no subsisting valid marriage at the time of the second marriage, no offence is made out." 17. In Bhunda v. Chetram2 a single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court hold: "In a prosecution under section 494 or 497 of the Indian Penal Code the question of marriage must be strictly proved and any inference, tacit or otherwise, for example, a tacit admission on the part of the husband or wife that they are husband and wife would not be sufficient to prove the factum of first marriage. In a case of this kind it is necessary for the complainant or some other person on his or her behalf to give strict proof of the marriage. Under section 50 of the Evidence Act a presumption which arises under the first part of the section as to the relationship is particularly excluded in cases in which the relationship of husband and wife is in issue............ Two persons may feel that they are married and on that basis may be living together. But, that by itself cannot lead to an inference, in a prosecution for matrimonial offences, that they have been legally married unless the prosecution gives strict proof that the two were married by performance of ceremonies required to make the marriage legal or in case of custom the customary rites were proved. Therefore, reference to the aforementioned admissions on the part of the accused non-applicants about the first marriage does not in any way advance the case of the prosecution and on that basis it cannot be held that the first marriage was lawfully performed." From the foregoing discussion, it emerges that in a prosecution under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, it is incumbent upon the complainant to establish that both the marriages pleaded by him or her were solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies either prescribed by the Hindu Law governing the parties or recognised by the custom obtaining in the community to which the parties belong and that admission of either the first or the second marriage by the accused is no evidence of the marriage. 18. Bearing in mind the legal propositions of law governing prosecution under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, I shall scrutinise the evidence let in by the complainant, P.W. 11 in support of her marriage with A-1. Besides herself, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 deposed to the marriage between her and A-1. 18. Bearing in mind the legal propositions of law governing prosecution under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, I shall scrutinise the evidence let in by the complainant, P.W. 11 in support of her marriage with A-1. Besides herself, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 deposed to the marriage between her and A-1. P.W. 11 merely deposed that on 28th May, 1969 she was married to A-1 and that ten or eleven months after her marriage the same was consummated. P.W. 1 deposed that the marriage between A-1 and P.W. 11 took place about seven Or eight years prior to his giving evidence. P.W. 1 merely referred to the relationship between A-1 and P.W. 11 as husband and wife. P.W. 3 deposed that A-1 and P.W. 11 had married according to the Hindu Law. He did not state anything more. He did not speak to the performance of any religious or customary rites or ceremonies at the marriage. P.Ws. 4 and 6 also merely deposed that they had attended the marriage of A-1 with P.W. 11 in Kesarapalli Anjaneya Temple at Eluru. 19. P.W. 14, a purohit by profession, examined by the complainant deposed to the customary ceremonies performed at marriage amongst members of Kamma community., Admittedly, he did not officiate at the marriage between A-1 and P.W. 11. He, however, claimed to have officiated at several marriages amongst members of Kamma community. He would have it that the ceremony of ‘homam’ was not observed’ by’ the community, that the bridal couple would, however, be made to go round the ‘Kalyana Mandapam’ or their seats seven times, that each spouse would be asked to keep his or her foot on a ‘Sana’, that the other spouse would be made to press it with his or her foot, that the ritual is known as ‘Sapthapadhi’, that after the ‘Kanyadanam’, ‘Jeelakarra’ and ‘Bellam’ would be applied on the head of the bride and that ‘Sudhra Dharana’ and showing of ‘Arundati’ star could be the other important rituals to be observed by the bridal couple belonging to Kamma community. He added that at’ the marriage? amongst Brahmins and Kshatriyas ‘Homam’ would be performed. 20. He added that at’ the marriage? amongst Brahmins and Kshatriyas ‘Homam’ would be performed. 20. The testimony of P.W. 14 thus establishes that at the marriages amongst members of Kamma community, though the ceremony of Homam is not observed, the ceremony of Sapthapadhi is strictly observed besides observing the other rituals spoken to by P.W. 14. Admittedly, the complainant and A-1 belong to the Kamma community. No evidence whatsoever was let in by the complainant that any of the customary ceremonies obtaining at marriages amongst members of Kamma community, as spoken to by P.W. 14, were performed at the marriage between her and A-1. It, therefore, follows that the complainant. failed to establish that her marriage with A-1 was validly solemnized in accordance with the customary ceremonies obtaining in the community to which the parties belong. As already stated, the admission of the marriage with P.W. 11 by A-1 is no evidence of proof of the marriage in a case of bigamy. In this view, it is unnecessary to adjudicate upon either the factum or the validity of the alleged marriage between A-1 and A-2, as even assuming that A-1 had validly married A-2, it cannot be said that the marriage took place during the subsistance of a valid marriage between A-1 and P.W. 11. The convictions of the petitioners are, therefore, liable to be set aside. 21. The learned Counsel for the complainant, relying upon the decision in Golla Narayanamma v. Golla Suryapandurangappa and others1, urged that as the performance of the marriage between A-1 and P.W. 11 had, in fact, been proved, it should be presumed that the necessary ceremonies had also been duly performed at the marriage and that it was for the petitioners to rebut the presumption and establish by evidence that the form of marriage gone through by A-1 and P.W. 11 was invalid in some respect or other. A perusal of the decision rendered by the Division Bench consisting of Venkatesam and Venkateswara Rao, JJ., shows that the learned Judges noticed the two decisions of the Supreme Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhanda and another v. The State of Maharashtra and another1 and Kanwal and other’s v. The Himachal Pradesh Administration2 and observed thus: “In both these cases, the question for consideration was whether an offence of bigamy was made out, and the question turned upon what constituted ceremonies of marriage under section 494, Indian Penal Code, and it was held that unless the marriage was solemnized with proper ceremonies and due form, the marriage was not valid, and that the essential ceremonies constituting the marriage must be proved. These cases are, therefore, of no assistance to the appellant.” It may be thus noted that far from dissenting from the principles enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the two cases, the Division Bench observed that the principles would be applicable to a case of prosecution under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. In the result, I set aside the convictions of. the petitioners and the sentences of imprisonment and fine inflicted on them. The amounts of fine, if paid by the petitioners, shall be refunded to them. The revision cases are accordingly allowed.