ORDER K. L. Shrivastava, J 1. This revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment dated 23-7-1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Garoth in Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1983 whereby the petitioner's conviction under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month have been maintained. 2, According to the complaint filed on 24-12-80 by Kasturibai, the non-applicant No.2, she was married to the petitioner about seven years back. After about six months she was turned out and the petitioner has again married one Yashodabai. 3. On the complaint aforesaid, the petitioner and Yashodabai were both prosecuted. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted Yashodabai holding that it has not been proved that she had knowledge that the petitioner was already married to the non-applicant Kasturibai. He However, convicted the present petitioner. 4. The petitioner went up in appeal but was unsuccessful. Hence this revision petition. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is not an iota of evidence to prove that the petitioner has married Mst. Yashodabai and the conviction is, therefore, unwarranted. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decision in Bhaurao's case AIR 1965 SC 1564 , Kanwalram's case AIR 1966 SC 614 , Priya Bala's case AIR 1971 SC 1153 , L. Obulamma's case AIR 1979 SC 848 =1979 Cr. LJ 849, Bhunda Sukru's case 1976 JLJ 621 = 1976 MPLJ 600 , and Gopal lal's case 1979 Cr. LJ 652. 6. Learned counsel for the State contends that on the material on record the concurrent finding that the petitioner has married Yashodabai is clearly sustainable and no interference is called for in revision. 7. The point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 8. In L. Obulamma's case (supra) in paragraph 5, it has been pointed out that it is well-settled that before conviction can be recorded under S. 494 IPC the following ingredients must be proved:- (l) that the complainant had been married to the accused; (2) that the accused contracted a second marriage while the first marriage was still subsisting: (3) that both he marriages were valid and strictly according to law governing the parties. It may be stated that it is the validity of marriage which gives the Spouses the status of husband and wife. 9. In matrimonial offences the burden of strict proof of marriage according to the personal law or the customer must be discharged by the prosecution and as pointed out in the decision in Bhunda Sukru's case (supra) tacit admission of sush relationship would not be sufficient to prove the marriage. In the decision in Gopal lal's case AIR 1979 SC 713 it bas been pointed out that for the proof of the offence of bigamy punishable under section 494 of the IPC it has to be proved that the second marriage was a valid one (for if it is not valid, it is no' marriage in the eye of law) in the sense that the necessary ceremonies required by the personal law or custom governing the parties have been actually performed and that despite the fact that such a marriage is void under section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in addition to civil consequences, it also attracts the applicability of the penal provision in section 494 of the I. P. C. 10. In the decision in Gopal case (supra) in paragraph 6, the two essentials of the custom of Natra Marriage have been mentioned. They pertain to pitcher and Chura. In the decision in L. Obulamma's case (supra) it has been pointed out that where there was absolutely no evidence to prove that any of the two essential ceremonies i.e. Datta Homa and Saptapadi had been performed at the time of second marriage and the existence of custom in the community to put the 'yarn thread' instead of 'Mangal Sutra' was neither in the complaint nor proved in the evidence, the conviction under section 494 I. P. C. could not be sustained. In Kanwalram's case (supra) it has been held that admission of marriage by the accused is not evidence for the purpose of proving marriage in an adultery or bigami case. As pointed out in Bhunda Sukru's case (supra) two persons may feel that they are legally married and on that basis may be living together as husband and wife but they by itself cannot lead to an inference in a prosecution for matrimonial offences that they have been legally married. As pointed out in Bhunda Sukru's case (supra) two persons may feel that they are legally married and on that basis may be living together as husband and wife but they by itself cannot lead to an inference in a prosecution for matrimonial offences that they have been legally married. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the law insists on strict proof of a valid marriages for basing conviction under section 494 of the I. P. C. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. None of them is an eye-witness to the alleged marriage between the petitioner and Mst. Yeshodabai. None of them has deposed about the ceremonies performed in the alleged marriage between them. 12. In a criminal trial an accused is presumed to be innocent and the unshifting burden of proving his guilt in all its ingredients beyond reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. Oil the material placed on record, I am clearly of opinion that the prosecution has failed to discharge that burden and the petitioner's conviction is, therefore, clearly ill founded. 13, Before parting with the case, it bas to be emphasised that so long as the law requires that despite admission, the marriage have to be strictly proved, the complainant and the trial court must both take care to ensure that the requisite material is placed on record so that the culprits do not escape the punishment they deserve. As for the structure of its decision, the resources of the Court are ultimately limited to the material made available on record, it can do precious little in the matter and its finding may not accord with reality. 14. In the ultimate analysis, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The petitioner's conviction under section 494 of the I. P. C. and the sentence passed there under are both set aside. He is acquitted of the offence. He is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.