JASRAJ CHOPRA, J—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated May 4, 1978 wherby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondents Bisalaram, Chainaram, Mst. Shyokori, Malaram, Smt. Kasturi, Kanaram and Smt. Ladu of the offences under ss. 494 and 494 read with s. 109 IPC. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant Rampyari is the married wife of accused Bisalaram. Her marriages with Bisalaram was performed on Chet Vadi-1 Samvat-2024 in village Kamasar according to Hindu customs and rites. She remained with him as his wife upto Samvat 2030. Later, it is alleged that Bisalaram bate her and turned her out of his house and on Pratham Bhadwa Sudi-11, Samvat 2031, accused Bisalaram performed his second marriage with Mst. Kastoori daughter of accused Kanaram in village Ramsisar. Accused Chainaram and Mst. Shyokori are the father and mother of accused Bisalaram. Malaram is the brother of accused Bisalaram. It is alleged that accused Chainaram, Shyokori and Malaram instigated accused Bisalaram to contract the second marriage. Accused-respondents No. 6 and 7 viz., Kanaram and Smt. Ladu are the father and m her of Smt. Kastoori. It is alleged that Kanaram and Smt. Ladu knowingly married Mst. Kastoori with Bisalaram that Bisalaram has already married Mst. Ram Pyari and hence, this complaint was filed against all these 7 accused persons. After enquiry under ss. 209 and 202 Cr. P. C, the case against all the 7 accused persons was registered and certain witnesses were examined and then charge under s. 494 IPC was framed against accused Bisalaram and charge under ss. 494 read with s. 109 IPC was framed against the remaining 6 accused-persons. 3. The complainant Mst. Ram Pyari examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of her case. The statements of the accused-persons were recorded under s. 313 Cr. P. C. The accused-persons took the plea that actually, the marriage of Mst. Kastoori has been performed with Ramuram, the younger brother of Bisalaram on that very date but not with Bisalaram. This is what has been stated by Ramuram as also by Mst. Kastoori and all other accused-persons. In support of their defence plea, the accused-persons have examined D.W. 1 Heera-ram, D. W. 2 Umaram and D. W. 3 Ramuram. 4. Kastoori has been performed with Ramuram, the younger brother of Bisalaram on that very date but not with Bisalaram. This is what has been stated by Ramuram as also by Mst. Kastoori and all other accused-persons. In support of their defence plea, the accused-persons have examined D.W. 1 Heera-ram, D. W. 2 Umaram and D. W. 3 Ramuram. 4. The learned lower court, after appreciating the evidence led in the case came to the conclusion that actually, Mst. Kastoori has been married with Ramu Ram and not with accused Bisalaram. It has held that the prosecution has failed to prove that Bisalaram has contracted the second marriage with Mst. Kastoori. It is against this Judgment that Mst. Rampyari has preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. S. K. Goel, learned counsel for the complainant-appellant and Mr. Suresh R. Kumbhat, learned counsel for the accused-respondents. I have meticulously gone through the record of the case. 6. So far as complainant-appellant Mst. Rampyari is concerned, has not seen the marriage. She has only stated that she went to village Poolasar and there, she saw the marriage party going from village Ramsisar to village Bherusar. According to her,, the marriage party was going in a Bus. Initially, she said that it was going in a motor and there were 5 Baraties and loor, she stated that it was going in a bus containing 5 baraties and further in her cross-examination, she has stated that the Barat was going in a Jeep. The village Poolasar is at adist-ance of 5 miles from village Kamasar, the village of Mst. Rampyari. It is not known as to why she went to village Poolasar on that day. Moreover, she has stated that she saw the marriage party on Pratham Bhadwa Sudi-11, Samvat 2031 whereas, according to the statement of P. W. 9 Moolchand, the marriage party returned on the next day and, therefore, there was no question of her seeing the marriage party going to village Bherusar on that day. P. W. 9 Moolchand has further stated that his Jeep was hired from Sardarshahar and they directly went to the village Ramsisar. If that was so, the Jeep did not come to the village Poolasar on that day and, therefore, the statement of Mst. Rampyari that she has seen the marriage party appears to be totally false. 7. P. W. 9 Moolchand has further stated that his Jeep was hired from Sardarshahar and they directly went to the village Ramsisar. If that was so, the Jeep did not come to the village Poolasar on that day and, therefore, the statement of Mst. Rampyari that she has seen the marriage party appears to be totally false. 7. P.W. 3 Suganaram is the father of complainant Rampyari. He has not seen the marriage ceremony. He was only informed about it by one Ramlal (P. W. 2). Similar Is the case of P. W. 4 Bhuraram, who too has not seen the marriage of Mst. Kastoori with Bisalaram. Both these witnesses have proved that the marriage of Mst, Rampyari was performed with accused Bisalaram and that, of course, has not been contested by the defence also and, therefore, so far as their testimony as regards the marriage of Mst. Kastoori with accused Bisalaram is concerned, it is only a hear-say testimony. So for as the testimony of P. W. 5 Maloonm and P. W. 6 Badri Pd. are concerned, they do not throw any light on the fact as to whether accused Bisalaram contracted the second marriage with Mst. Kastoori on Pratham Bhadwa Sudi-11 Samvat. 2031. 8. P.W. 7 Doongarram is the another person who has stated that he not only attended the marriage of Mst, Rampyari with accused Bisalaram but he also attended the second marriage of accused Bisalaram which was performed with Mst. Kastoori and he boarded the Jeep for the marriage party from village Bherusar. This witness appears to be a planted witness because P. W. 9 Mool-chand has stated that his Jeep was hired from Sardarshahar and they directly went to the village Ramsisar and they never went to village Bherusar on that day. Rather, they went to village Bherusar on the next day while returning after marriage and, therefore the learned lower court has lightly disbelieved the testimony of this witness. There is one more reason to disbelieve his testimony be-cause in his cross-examination, he has admitted that Mst. Kastoori was married with Ramuram and not with Bisalaram. 9. P.W. 8 Dhannaram has also stated that he had seen Mst. Kastoori being married with Bisalaram. He belongs to village Ramsisar. He has stated that this marriage was performed on Pratham Bhadwa Sudi-11 Samvat 213 He went to the house of Kanaram. Kastoori was married with Ramuram and not with Bisalaram. 9. P.W. 8 Dhannaram has also stated that he had seen Mst. Kastoori being married with Bisalaram. He belongs to village Ramsisar. He has stated that this marriage was performed on Pratham Bhadwa Sudi-11 Samvat 213 He went to the house of Kanaram. He has stated that neither Sugnaram nor Kana Ram is related to him. If that is so, there was no occasion for him to go and attend this marriage. Although, he has stated the date of the marriage of Mst. Kastoori with accused Bisalaram but he has been unable to disclose the da:e, month and year of his own marriage. He was also unable to say how the marri-age ceremony was performed. According to him, the marriage parly went back on the same night, which fact, of course, is falsified by P-W. 6 Badri Pd. 10. To prove an offence under s. 494 IPC, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the solemnization of second marriage in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to parties. In this respect, I am supported from a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Priya Bala V. Suresh Chandra (1). Similar view has been taken by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhaurao V. State of Maharashtra, (2), wherein the word solemnize has been interpreted to mean celebration of the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form and it was held that all those ceremonies have to be proved. P. W. 8 Dhannaram has not opened his mouth about any ceremony from which it could be concluded that the second marriage of Bisalaram was solemnized with Mst. Kastoori. Till, it is proved that the second marriage contracted by accused Bisalaram was legally valid, the conviction under s. 494 IPC cannot be sustained. In this respect, I got myself supported from a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in L. Obulamma V. L. Venkata Reddy (3). 11. P.W. 9 Moolchand has stated that he does not know what ceremonies were performed about this marriage and, therefore, his testimony also is not of much avail to the prosecution. Unless, the ceremonies necessary for legalising the second marriage are proved, a conviction under s. 494 IPC cannot be recorded. 12. Now, I take up the testimony of P.W. 2 Ramlal. Unless, the ceremonies necessary for legalising the second marriage are proved, a conviction under s. 494 IPC cannot be recorded. 12. Now, I take up the testimony of P.W. 2 Ramlal. He has stated hat Bisalaram has performed his second marriage with Mst. Kastoori on Pratham Bhadwa Sudi-11, Samvat 2031. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not seen the second marriage. Although, later he resiled from that statement and has stated that he has seen the second marriage which was performed in village Ramsisar whereas it is an admitted case of the prosecution that it was performed in village Ramsisar. He belongs to village Kamassar, which is at a distance of about 20 miles from village Ramsisar. He has stated that he went there only to see this marriage, which does not appear to be believable. The learned lower court has also disbelieved this part of his testimony. He happens to be in the family of Smt. Rampyaris father, which fact has been admitted by P.W. 4 Bhura-ram. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say at what time, the second marriage took place. Thus, it is clear that he has actually not seen the marriage. He has also not opened his mouth about the ceremonies that were performed at the time of the marriage. Later, he has stated that Bisalarams father and mother told him that Bisalaram has contracted the second marriage. According to him, at that time, Kanaram and Malaram were also present. If actually, he has seen the marriage ceremonies, he need not have obtained this information from the father and mother of Bisalaram. The marriage was performed in the night whereas he has left the village at about 6 P.M. in the evening. In the last part of his statement, he has admitted that Mst. Rampyari is his grand-daughter. It is, therefore, clear that he has not seen the marriage and hence, the learned lower court has rightly disbelieved his testimony. 13. I have critically examined the evidence on record and have also critically examined the findings of the learned lower court. I do not find any perversity in the finding recorded by the learned lower court, when the second marriage has not been proved, no conviction under s. 494 IPC or for that matter under s.494 read with s. 109 IPC could have been recorded against the accused-persons. Mst. I do not find any perversity in the finding recorded by the learned lower court, when the second marriage has not been proved, no conviction under s. 494 IPC or for that matter under s.494 read with s. 109 IPC could have been recorded against the accused-persons. Mst. Kestoori and Ramuram both have categorically stated that they have married with each other. A lady who has been married with a particular person will never say that she has been married with a different person. 14. Moreover, it is a finding of fact based on sound appreciation of evidence, on the basis of which, an acquittal has been obtained by the accused-persons. It should not be disturbed in appeal lightly by this Court specially after the expiry of about 13 years. In this respect, I place reliance on the following decisions : State vs. Probhudayal (4); State of Gujarat vs. Babu @ Roni Manilal (5); Hasan Ahmad vs. State of Gujarat (6); and Dinanath Singh vs. State of Bihar (7). 15. When the accused-persons cannot be held guilty of the offence under s. 494 IPC or under s. 494 read with s. 109 IPC, no compensation as claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant can be granted to the appellant. I am, therefore, disinclined to accept this request of Mr. S.K. Goel learned counsel for the appellant. 16. In the result, I find no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.