JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - On the basis of the complaint filed by the appellant, the respondent was prosecuted for the offence of bigamy punishable u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The trial Judge acquitted the Respondent holding that the appellant was not able to establish the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The said order of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal. 2. It is the allegation of the appellant that she married to the respondent on 22-6-1979 as per the Hindu customs and rites and both of them lived together as husband and wife. During the year 1980, she (the appellant) was ill and bed ridden and neither the respondent nor any members of his family took care of her for which she came back to her father's house. It is the allegation of the appellant that during the period of her absence, the respondent remarried one Pravati in the temple of Lord Jagannath at Jajpur for the second time as per the Hind customs and rites and now both the respondent and the said Pravati are staying as husband and wife. 3. The plea of the respondent was one of complete denial. 4. It has to be first examined whether marriage was celebrated between the appellant and the respondent as alleged. PW 1 is the appellant herself. She stated that one Surendra Dhal was the mediator for the marriage whereas PW 2, the father of the appellant stated that one Babu Dhal was the mediator. PW 3. neighbour of the appellant stated that one Kalandi Mohanty was the proposer for the marrage. None of the so-called mediator was examined in the case. The appellant stated that her father PW 2 performed the Kanyadan whereas PW 2 stated that his brother Gopinath performed Kanyadan. Regarding the exact date of marraige PW 1 stated that the marriage took place on 22-6-1979 but during her initial deposition, she stated that she married to the appellant on 19-6-1979. Marriage invitation card would have been in the circumstances the best piece of evidence in proof of the date of marriage but PW 4 stated that no invitation cards were printed on the occasion of marriage. It is the case of the appellant that her marriage with respondent was performed as per the Hindu customs and rites. Marriage invitation card would have been in the circumstances the best piece of evidence in proof of the date of marriage but PW 4 stated that no invitation cards were printed on the occasion of marriage. It is the case of the appellant that her marriage with respondent was performed as per the Hindu customs and rites. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states that a Hind marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto and such rites and ceremonies may include the Saptapadi which is taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and bride jointly before the sacred fire. The appellant stated in her evidence that there was the Saptapadi after which the marriage was concluded. According to her the Saptapadi was performed in the last phase which was done by walking over seven small pitchers. The 'Saptapadi' as is understood in Hindu Law does not contemplate of waking over seven pitchers. Where the form of marriage adopted by the parties includes the Saptapadi, what is necessary, is taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and bride jointly before the sacred fire and the marriage becomes complete when the seventh step is taken. This is in accord with the existing law. There is no evidence to show if there is any custom or practice prevailing with the parties of walking over the seven pitchers to perform the Saptapadi. Assuming if any such custom or practice is permissible, the version of the appellant does not find any corroboration and the evidence is discrepant and untrustworthy. The appellant herself was not able to say if respondent walked over the pitchers. PW 2 stated that when the newly wedded couple walked over the pitchers, some of which were broken due to the walk of the respondent and the remaining pitchers were broken by the appellant in course of her walk. PW 3 gave a different picture by stating that the Saptapadi means breaking of small earthen pitchers by the couple with the help of their toes jointly and each pitcher is to be broken separately by the couple after chanting of mantras by the priest. In the face of such unreliable and discrepant evidence, it has to be held that the appellant has failed to establish that she had married the respondent. 5. In the face of such unreliable and discrepant evidence, it has to be held that the appellant has failed to establish that she had married the respondent. 5. As the first part of the appellant's story has not been established beyond reasonable dout, there is no need to examine if the respondent had married Pravati as alleged in the complaint. On assessment of evidence, the learned Magistrate has held that the appellant has failed to prove that there was a valid marriage between the respondent and Pravati. Interpreting the expression "whoever...... marries" occurring in Section 494 of IPC, the Supreme Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1564 observed as follows : "Prima faice, 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 marrying arises. If the marriage is not a valid marriage, it is no marrige in the eye of law......" At this stage, it is relevant to take note of Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') which provides that any marriage between two Hindus solemnised after the commencement of the 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 IPC shall accordingly apply. By interpreting Section 17 of the Act vis-a-vis Section 494 of the IPC, the Supreme Court in Gopal Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, in paragraph 5 of the judgment observed as follows : "What Section 17 contemplates is that the second marriage must be according to the ceremonies requited by law. If the mairiage is void, its voidness would only lead to civil consequences arising from such marriage. Section 17 makes it absolutely clear that the provision has to be read in harmony and conjunction with the provisions of Section 494 of the Penal Code. Section 17 clearly provides that provisions of Sections 494 and 495 of the Penal Code shall apply accordingly. Section 17 makes it absolutely clear that the provision has to be read in harmony and conjunction with the provisions of Section 494 of the Penal Code. Section 17 clearly provides that provisions of Sections 494 and 495 of the Penal Code shall apply accordingly. In other words though the marriage may be void u/s 17 by reason of the fact that it was contracted while the first marriage was subsisting, the case squarely falls within the four corners of Section 494 and by contracting the second marriage the accused incurs the penalty imposed by the said statute......" For the second marriage also there is no evidence that the respondent and Pravati took seven steps jointly before the sacred fire. The same story of walking over pitchers was repeated with regard to this incident also.The appellant admittedly was not a witness to the, second marriage. She could know about the second marriage which took place on 13-7- 1981 in the Jagannath Temple of Jajpur, PW 2, father of the appellant stated that the respondent married to one Prasanti (not Pravati) on 13-7- 1981. He stated that he went to the Jagannath Temple at Jajpur and protested. Although in his evidence he claimed to be an eye witness to the second marriage, his evidence does not inspire confidence because of the fact that in the cross-examination he admitted that one Bhima Panigrahi told him about the second marriage. In that case he could not have seen marriage. In the same breath, he stated that he had seen the Saptapadi of second marriage which was performed by the respondent and the second wife by walking over small earthen pitchers and there was no altar in the Jagannath temple where the second marriage took place. When the law requires that to perform the Saptapadi taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire is necessary, the evidence of walking over pitchers is of no avail. PW 3 stated that according to him, the Saptapadi means breaking of small earthen pitchers by the couple with the help of their toes jointly and each pitcher is to be broken separately by the couple after chanting of mantras by the priest. Thi9 is a new version of performing the Sapta- padi. PW 3 stated that according to him, the Saptapadi means breaking of small earthen pitchers by the couple with the help of their toes jointly and each pitcher is to be broken separately by the couple after chanting of mantras by the priest. Thi9 is a new version of performing the Sapta- padi. He stated that he went to the place of second marriage being called by PW 2 and by the time he arrived, the Saptapadi was already over. PW 6 was the priest who claimed to have performed the second marriage of the respondent. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know Pravati (said to be the second wife of respondent). He could not say the date of the marriage. According to him, the marriage was performed on the Snana Mandap and not before any altar. He gave another version of the Saptapadi. He stated that the Saptapadi means walking of the bride by observing seven rules i.e. obedience, truthfulness, rearing of the children, respect for the guardian etc. which were enchanted as slokas. PW 6 was examined as an witness to the second marriage. But his evidence would show that he is wholly unreliable inasmuch as he was not in a position to say whether there was any priest or not. He vaguely stated that marriage was performed by obser- ving Hastaganthi.Kanyadana, Saptapadi, homo, etc. and according to him Saptapadi means the couple touching their toes on seven small earthen pitchers kept in a line, PWs 7, 8 and 9 although claimed to be the witnesses to the second marriage, their evidence hardly inspires confidence in view of their vague statements that the marriage was performed according to Hindu customs like Kanyadan,Hastayanthi, Homo and Saptapadi. In view of the nature of evidence as indicated above, it cannot be said that the appellant has been able to prove that there was a valid marriage beetween respondent and Pravati. The main ingredient of valid marriage having been not proved beyond reasonable doubt, no offence of bigamy was made out against the respondent. On reading of the judgment and the evidence on record, I am satisfied that appreciation evidence made by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality so as to be interfered with in this appeal. 6. The appeal is devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed