Judgment.- These two appeals by a private party are heard together as they arise out of the complaint given by the, appellant herein. The appellant filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sankari, in C.C. No. 1 of 1977 alleging that the first accused has committed an offence punishable under section 494, Indian Penal Code, and the other accused, namely, accused 2 to 26, have abetted the same. The complaint was taken on file under section 494, Indian Penal Code, read with section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as against the first accused and under section 494 read with section 102, Indian Penal Code and also section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act against accused 2 to 26. 2. First accused and the appellant, P.W. 1, were on intimate terms. The first accused used to visit her during college days. He used to take her to Hotel Swarka, Salem and also used to go to Cinemas. Their intimacy developed to such an extent that they even stayed alone at a hotel at Salem. The first accused even promised to surmount all obstacles and marry her. That was the reason why, according to the Appellant, she stayed with him in hotels. It was in the month of June, 1971, that there was some talk of choosing a bride for the first accused by his parents, On 8th August, 1971 at about 2-00 p.m. the first accused went to Coimbatore where P.W. 1 was staying and told her that he has no desire to marry the girl chosen by his parents and that he would like to marry her and promised to marry her and requested her to accompany him so that they could marry in a temple. P.W. 1 was mentally perturbed. It so happened that her sister's husband, Subramaniam, and her brother, P.W. 6 came to see her. The first accused asked them to help him to marry P.W. 1. They all went and saw P.W. 4 at Kodumudi and on his suggestion the marriage was celebrated at 4.00 a.m., on 9th June, 1971 in the house of P.W. 2. After the marriage, both P.W. 1 and the first accused went and lived with the mother of P.W. 1. The first accused then left her saying that he would persuade his parents to take her home. After the marriage, both P.W. 1 and the first accused went and lived with the mother of P.W. 1. The first accused then left her saying that he would persuade his parents to take her home. But, after returning to his parents’ house, the first accused gave a police complaint against P.W. 1 and others alleging that he was abducted and was forced to marry P.W. 1. That case ended in acquittal. The first accused did not file any appeal against that order of acquittal. At the mediation of one Ramasami and one Raju, P.W. 1 lived with the first accused in his house. Notwithstanding the cruel treatment of the parents of the first accused, she lived in the house of her husband, the first accused, enduring all the suffering. But the parents of the first accused wanted the first accused marry another girl and as P.W. 1 did not agree to that proposal, she was turned out of the house. After she returned to her mother's house, she learnt that preparations were going on in the house of the fourth accused, father of the second accused, to get the first accused married to the second accused. P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 took their uncle Subramaniam and also P.Ws. 7 and 8 and went in car to the house of the fourth accused. They protested. But, notwithstanding their protest, the first accused tied a thali around the neck of the second accused. P.W.1 was beaten and was turned out of that house. P.W. 1 also obtained a wound certificate and she sent telegrams to the Inspector-General of Police and other higher police officials at Salem, and later filed a private complaint out of which these appeals arise. 3. A number of witnesses were examined The trial Court believed the evidence of the witness and found that the first accused has contracted a marriage with P.W. 1 and also found that the first accused has married the second accused at the house of the fourth accused knowing fully well that the earlier marriage of the first accused with P.W. 1 is subsisting. The trial Magistrate found that accused 1 and 2 and accused 3, father of accused 1 and accused 4, father of accused 2, were aware of the sub-sistance of the marriage of P.W. 1 with the first accused and have abetted the offence of bigamy. The trial Magistrate found that accused 1 and 2 and accused 3, father of accused 1 and accused 4, father of accused 2, were aware of the sub-sistance of the marriage of P.W. 1 with the first accused and have abetted the offence of bigamy. He convicted the first accused of the offence punishable under section 494, Indian Penal Code, read with section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and accused 2 to 4 of the offence under section 494 and accused 2 to 4 of the offence under section 494 read with section 107, Indian Penal Code, and also section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and sentenced the first accused to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 1,000 and accused 2 to 4 to imprisonment till the arising of Court and to a fine of Rs. 500 each. He acquitted accused 5 to 26. 4. Against the judgment of the trial Court, the first accused preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 574 of 1977, before the Sessions Judge, Salem, while accused 2 to 4 preferred C.A. No. 575 of 1977. Both these appeals were heard together by the learned Sessions Judge, who acquitted accused 1 to 4 on the ground that there was no valid marriage between P. W. 1 and accused 1 and also between accused 1 and accused 2. P.W. 1, the complainant, has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1978, against the judgment of the Sessions Judge ordering acquittal of accused 1 to 4 and Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1978, against the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sankari, against the acquittal of accused 5 to 26. 5. Mr. Sriramulu, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant contended that the marriage between P.W. 1 and the first accused and the marriage between the first accused and the second accused have been duly solemnised and that the Court below is wrong is acquitting the accused holding that there was no valid marriage. He further pointed out that tying of a thali and exchange of garlands are sufficient to validate a marriage under section 7 -A of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended by Madras Act XXI of 1967 and the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in overlooking this provision of section 7 -A as amended by Madras Act XXI of 1967. 6. Per contra, Mr. 6. Per contra, Mr. Kulandaivelu, learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that a valid marriage has not been performed and therefore no offence under section 494, Indian Penal Code, is made out. He invited my attention to Kanwal Ram's case1, where it has been held that an admission is not evidence of the fact that a second marriage has taken place after the ceremonies constituting the same have been gone through, that in a case of adultery or bigamy, it must be proved by the prosecution that the second marriage as a fact has taken place after the performance of the essential ceremonies. According to him, these ceremonies have not been performed when the first accused is said to have married P.W. 1 or the second accused. It is necessary therefore to make reference to the evidence adduced in the case. 7. Apart from the evidence of P.W. 1, who has spoken to the fact of the first accused tying a thali and garlanding her in the house of P.W. 2, there is clear evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4. According to P.W. 1, both she and the first accused belong to Goundar community. The prosecution case is that the marriage was conducted according to the custom of the community. P.W. 2, Ponnuswami, has clearly spoken to the fact of the first accused marrying P.W. 1 between 4.00 a.m and 5-00 a.m. in his house. He denied the suggestion that the marriage has not taken place in his house. P.W. 3 is an “Arumaikaran”. He is said to have officiated the marriage. His evidence is that he performed the marriage in accordance with his caste custom. The suggestion to him was that he was an accused in a case filed by the first accused against P.W. 1, and others and that he is therefore deposing falsely against him. The other suggestion was that he was not an Arumaikaran at all. Both these suggestions were repelled by P.W. 3. P.W. 4 is another witness who has witnessed the marriage between P.W. 1 and the first accused. His evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W. 3. His evidence also shows that P.W. 3 was an Arumaikaran. P.W. 5, brother of P.W. 1 also speaks about the first marriage The evidence of P.W. 1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. P.W. 4 is another witness who has witnessed the marriage between P.W. 1 and the first accused. His evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W. 3. His evidence also shows that P.W. 3 was an Arumaikaran. P.W. 5, brother of P.W. 1 also speaks about the first marriage The evidence of P.W. 1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6, that the first accused tied a thali around the neck of P.W. 1 in the house of P.W. 2. His evidence further shows that P.W. 1 was left in (the house of her mother and the first accused after going to his parents’ house lodged a complaint with the police against P. W. 1 and 15 others that he had been abducted and wrongfully confined. Acquitting the case, the learned District Magistrate observed that he does not consider that it would have been possible for anyone to forcibly take P.W. 1, confirm him so long and make him go through the formalities of marriage. The photographs, M.O. 3, series, also show that there was exchange of garlands between the first accused and P.W. 1. The learned Sessions Judge refers to the evidence of P. W. 3, Arumaikaran, who has stated that the marriage was performed between P.W. 1, and the first accused in accordance with their caste custom and that Palakkai was planted and Kanganam was tied in the hands and thali was tied around the neck and garlands were exchanged and that aarathi was taken and the bridal couple went around the marriage dias. But, what the learned Sessions Judge says is that though these ceremonies were gone through, the only ceremony required for the validity of the marriage, in his view, is invocation of fire and saptapadi, which alone would constitute a valid marriage, and that has not been performed and therefore the marriage could not be said to have been solemnised. 8. Mr. Sriramulu, learned Counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the ruling in Koodappan v. Kothai2. That was a case where the wife lodged a complaint against her husband that he has committed bigamy by marrying a second wife. It was in evidence that the husband tied a thali around the neck of the accused, the second wife, and also exchanged garlands. That was a case where the wife lodged a complaint against her husband that he has committed bigamy by marrying a second wife. It was in evidence that the husband tied a thali around the neck of the accused, the second wife, and also exchanged garlands. It was pointed out in that case that under the section 7 -A of the Hindu Marriage Act, as amended by Madras Act XXI of 1968, exchange of garlands and tying off thali would be sufficient to validate the marriage and after coming into force of the (Hindu Marriage (Madras Amendment) Act (XXI of 1967 ), it is open to parties to choose to perform the marriage according to the custom prevailing in the community or according to the provisions of the Amendment Act even granting that the marriage between the revision petitioner in that case and the second accused in that case was not celebrated with ceremonies and in due form prescribed, yet the exchange of garlands and tying of thali in accordance with the provisions of section 7 -A of the Act, would constitute a valid marriage under law. It was also held that it was not necessary that in the complaint there should be an averment that the marriage performed was a suyamariyathai or seerthirutha marriage. It is strenuously contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that once the marriage is proved to have not taken place in accordance with the custom of the community, the appellant cannot fall back on the provisions of section 7 -A as amended by Act XXI of 1967, per contra, learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that if the marriage takes place in accordance with the provisions of section 7 -A and if a thali is tied around the neck of the bride and garlands are exchanged, it would constitute a valid marriage under law and in this case there is clear evidence off the fact that thali was tied around the neck of P.W. 1 by the first accused. Following the ruling in Koodappah v. Kothai1 it has to be held that there has been a valid marriage between P.W. 1 and the first accused. 9. The next question is whether there has been a valid second marriage. Following the ruling in Koodappah v. Kothai1 it has to be held that there has been a valid marriage between P.W. 1 and the first accused. 9. The next question is whether there has been a valid second marriage. This question presents some difficulty because there is no clinching evidence whether the second marriage was celebrated in accordance with the custom of the community or whether it was celebrated under the provisions of section 7 -A of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended by Madras Act XXI of 1967. P.Ws. 5 to 8 speak about the second marriage. P.W. 5 gives information about the first accused and the second accused having been dressed and getting ready for celebrating the marriage. But the evidence of this witness shows that he is a chance witness and there was no reason why he should go at 3. 00 a. m. in the morning and secondly he admits that P.W. 1 is none other than the daughter of his uncle. This witness is therefore an interested witness. P.W. 6 is none other than the brother of P.W. 1. He is also a witness who is interested in deposing in favour of P.W. 1. P.W. 7 is said to be a teacher. He is said to have been playing cards on that night. He is said to have gone along with others to obstruct the second marriage. He is also clear that there were decorations. It is very unlikely that the second marriage which is celebrated in secret should have been celebrated with such decoration. The evidence in respect of the second marriage does not impress me. Even though there is evidence of the first marriage of the first accused with P.W. 1, there is no clinching evidence as regards the second marriage of the first accused with the second accused. Under these circumstances, the first accused will not be liable for the offence under section 494, Indian Penal Code, read with section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, nor others for abetment of the offence. Both the appeals fail and are dismissed. R.S.R. ----- Appeals dismissed.