JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - This appeal has been filed by Pawan Kumar and his parents Om Parkash and Mewa Devi. They were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and vide judgment dated February 2/5, 1996 they were convicted under Sections 304-B read with Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment. Pawan Kumar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and other lesser sentences, Om Parkash to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and Mewa Devi was released on probation. 2. Pawan Kumar of Kaithal was first married to Shakuntla daughter of Brij Lal of Cheeka in 1983. The couple had two sons but Pawan Kumar started harassing Shakuntla and demanded dowry which demands her family met, off and on in cash and kind. According to Shakuntlas brother Nand Lal (PW-3). Shakuntla was not in a proper frame of mind and was somewhat disturbed when her marriage had taken place. Pawan Kumar told Shakuntlas family that he wanted to remarry and if Shakuntlas sister Vaishno Devi (deceased) was not married to him he would remarry someone else. Shakuntlas family sensed that if Pawan Kumar determined to remarry then it would be better if he marries Vaishno Devi as this would make Shakuntla happy. So they agreed to get Vaishno Devi married to Pawan Kumar. The marriage between the two was solemnised on December 10, 1989. Pawan Kumar and Vaishno Devi also had a son. Pawan Kumar often used to beat Vaishno Devi and demand dowry and also taunt her by saying that if he had been married in some other family he would have got more dowry. After 6 months of marriage Pawan Kumar and his parents demanded Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of a plot from Vaishno Devis family and also for purchase of scooter. Pawan Kumar went to Nand Lals house to make this demand. An old scooter was given to him and Rs. 50,000 was promised to be given in future. After 6 months of the getting the scooter. Pawan Kumar returned to Nand Lals house and demanded that he should be given a new scooter and also demanded Rs. 50,000/-. 3. The occurrence took place on March 23, 1992. An old scooter was given to him and Rs. 50,000 was promised to be given in future. After 6 months of the getting the scooter. Pawan Kumar returned to Nand Lals house and demanded that he should be given a new scooter and also demanded Rs. 50,000/-. 3. The occurrence took place on March 23, 1992. 15 days before the occurrence a panchayat had been convened at Pawan Kumars house consisting of Nand Lal (PW-2), Radhey Lal, Munna Lal and Jit Ram and it was resolved that the accused should not harass Vaishno Devi and whatever was possible would be given to them in future. Pawan Kumar and his co-accused agreed to this proposal. On March 23, 1992 information was received by Kashmiri Lal (PW-5) that Pawan Kumar and his parents had immolated Vaishno Devi. This information was conveyed to Nand Lal (PW-2) through one Baisakhi Ram whereupon Nand Lal and others reached the house of the accused and found the dead body of Vaishno Devi lying in the courtyard of the house in burnt condition. The matter was reported to the police by Nand Lal and case was registered. Inspector Bhoop Singh (PW-8) took up investigation and took photographs of the dead body and conducted inquest proceedings. A can containing 7/8 litres of kerosene was recovered from the spot. Half burnt clothes of the deceased, a match box and burnt match sticks were also recovered. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by a Board consisting of Dr. S.K. Singal (PW-1), Dr. Ranjna Jain and Dr. A.K. Leel. The Medical Board observed as follows :- "Length of the dead body was 5. It was dead body of a young lady about 22 years of age, wearing Mangal Sutra around neck, aluminium bangles on both wrists, tops both ears, nose pin, ring around right ring finger, Chutki around 3rd toe of both feet, partially burnt bands of blouse around each arm, pieces of partially burn bra, blouse, and saree. Eyes were closed, tongue was protruding out between teeth for about 2.5 cm. Whole of the body was rigid and in pugilistic posture. Pubic hair, axilliary hair, eye brows were burnt. Scalp hair also burnt. More in anterior part. Choti was also partially burnt. Smell of kerosene was coming out from the body and partially burnt clothes. Eyes were closed, tongue was protruding out between teeth for about 2.5 cm. Whole of the body was rigid and in pugilistic posture. Pubic hair, axilliary hair, eye brows were burnt. Scalp hair also burnt. More in anterior part. Choti was also partially burnt. Smell of kerosene was coming out from the body and partially burnt clothes. Superficial to deep burns were present all over the body with sooty blackening at different areas except on the central part of palms both hands. However, superficial burns with redness present on the peripheral areas. Dried wheat flour was present sticking to the fingers and palm of the left hand. Areas of erythema of different sizes were present, scattered all over the body. At places skin was easily pealed off." The deceased was found to be pregnant with foetus of about 12 weeks size. In the opinion of the Medical Officers, the cause of death was shock as a result of extensive burns which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Viscera was sent for chemical analysis to rule out any associated intoxication. Death had occurred with short time of the burns. Time between death and post mortem was 24 hours. Post mortem was signed by three doctors of the Medical Board. 4. The accused were arrested and sent up for trial. At the trial charge was framed against them under Sections 498-A and 304 Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined Dr. S.K. Singhal (PW-1), Nand Lal (PW-2), Sham Sunder (PW-3). Mahesh Sharma (PW-4), Kashmiri Lal (PW-5), Baskhi (PW-6), Mange Ram C (PW-7), Inspector Bhoop Singh (PW-8) and SI Vishnu Dutt (PW-9). 5. After completion of the prosecution evidence accused were examined without oath under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code Pawan Kumar admitted his first marriage to Shakuntla but denied his marriage to Vaishno Devi. Surprisingly he admitted that Vaishno Devi had born him a son. In defence he gave the following version :- "Shakuntla Devi was suffering from mental disease before her marriage and this fact was not disclosed to us. She was treated at various places but could not be cured fully. She used to fight with our family members and with the neighbours of our locality. She could not perform the marital duties. In defence he gave the following version :- "Shakuntla Devi was suffering from mental disease before her marriage and this fact was not disclosed to us. She was treated at various places but could not be cured fully. She used to fight with our family members and with the neighbours of our locality. She could not perform the marital duties. Vaishno Devi was settled with me by the parents of Shakuntla as they felt that Shakuntla could not perform her household duties. Shakuntla or Vaishno Devi were never harassed on account of any thing much less on account of any demand of dowry. I and my parents were not present at our house when Vaishno Devi received burn injuries. Shakuntla also used to quarrel and beat up Vaishno Devi. My mother was in the neighbourhood when she learnt about the fire injuries on the person of Vaishno Devi. She immediately rushed to the house and threw water over her to extinguish the fire but damage had already been done. Letter mark DA and mark DB are in the handwriting of Vaishno Devi whose name in our house was Poonam. I am a Kansal by caste and she used to write herself as Poonam Kansal. I identify the handwriting of my wife. These two letters have been addressed to my sister and my brother-in- law. Letter mark DA has been addressed to my sister Murti Devi and her husband Sumer Chand at Kurukshetra while letter mark DB has been addressed to my sister Santosh and my brother-in-law Anil Kumar at Ismailabad. (These letters are exhibited now as D.A. and D.B.). Photographs Ex. DD was taken at Simla when I had gone with Vaishno Devi for the honey-moon. My father owns a plot of 3800 sq. yards in Patel Nagar at Kaithal. We had sent Ishwar s/o Purshotam Dass to Cheeka to inform the parents of the deceased as there was no telephonic connection at the house/shop of the complainant party during those days and Cheeka was also not connected with STD facility. My first marriage and the subsequent arrangement had been done by Dharam Pal and Chandgi Ram. I am innocent." 6. My first marriage and the subsequent arrangement had been done by Dharam Pal and Chandgi Ram. I am innocent." 6. When called upon to enter defence he examined Ishwar Chand (DW-1) who testify that Shakuntla was married to Pawan Kumar about 11 years before the date on which his statement was recorded (the statement was recorded on November 19, 1994. Therefore, the date of marriage would be sometime in 1983). Shakuntla was a mad woman who behaved abnormally and would laugh or weep without any reason. She would abuse people and beat children passing through street. Because of this reason and in order to bring up Shakuntlas children her father and brothers settled Vaishno Devi with Pawan Kumar as Shakuntla Devi could not perform her marital duties. In cross-examination it was stated by Ishwar Singh that no marriage had been solemnised between Vaishno Devi and Pawan Kumar, no barat was taken. Jyoti Parshad (DW-2) was also examined to testify regarding the mental state of Shakuntla. Similarly Chandgi Ram (DW-3) was examined to testify to this effect. 7. The learned trial court considered the argument of the defence with regard to the delay in reporting the matter to the police and came to the conclusion that there was no undue delay in this case. The occurrence had taken place at 4.30 P.M. on March 23, 2002 and case was registered at 8.15 p.m. Therefore, the trial court rightly concluded that there was really no delay at all. 8. It had been forcibly argued before the trial court that Vaishno Devi deceased was not the legally wedded wife of Pawan Kumar since she had only been settled with Pawan Kumar to look after his children from Shakuntla and to help Shakuntla in household duties. Marriage between Pawan Kumar and the deceased was void as at the time of marriage Pawan Kumars wife Shakuntla was alive and the marriage had not been dissolved. The court referred to the provisions of law and also to the statement of Pawan Kumar recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code where Pawan Kumar had mentioned two letters written by deceased who used to call herself Poonam Kansal instead of Vaishno Devi. The letters were Ex. DA and Ex. DB. Pawan Kumar had also been relying upon the photographs taken at the time of his honey-moon with the deceased. The letters were Ex. DA and Ex. DB. Pawan Kumar had also been relying upon the photographs taken at the time of his honey-moon with the deceased. Considering all this material, this court decided that for all intents and purposes Pawan Kumar had considered the deceased as his legally wedded wife. Relying upon Durgawati v. State and others, 1981 Criminal Law Journal NOC 191 (Allahabad) and Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 713 the trial court held that although the marriage between Pawan Kumar and the deceased was a null marriage but in the absence of a decree of nullity it could not be considered to be non est and subsisted till the deceased died. Pawan Kumar could not be absolved of criminal liability even if his marriage was void as this was not his defence. Furthermore, the trial court held that ingredients of Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code had been fully established and all three appellants were convicted and awarded different sentences. 9. In appeal it has been vehemently argued that if there was no evidence that the deceased had been subjected to harassments or cruelty by the appellants for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. Therefore, one of the main ingredients of the offence had not been established. Reliance was placed on Sham Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1873 where it was held that events had taken place ten to fifteen days prior to the occurrence and there was no other evidence that the deceased had been considered with cruelty or harassed with demand for dowry and for this reason presumption of dowry death could not be raised. The accused in that case were acquitted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Reliance was also placed on Mungeshwar Prasad Chaurasia v. State of Bihar, 2002(1) RCR(Crl.) 621, a judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India, the where court held that the accused had demanded dowry soon after the marriage but there was no evidence that they did anything directly or indirectly soon before the death of the deceased and the accused were acquitted. 10. 10. The second limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was as regards the void nature of the marriage between Pawan Kumar and Vaishno Devi since at that time Pawan Kumars first marriage with Vaishno Devis sister Shakuntla was subsisting and had not been dissolved a by decree of divorce. Therefore, it could not be said that the deceased had died within 7 years of marriage since there was no marriage in the eyes of law. It would be appropriate to deal with the question of the nature of the marriage between Pawan Kumar and Vaishno Devi before proceeding to examine the evidence as regards presumption of dowry death. The best evidence with regard to the two marriages which Pawan Kumar performed is of Nand Lal (PW-3). According to this witness Pawan Kumar was married to his sister Shakuntla in April, 1983. Nand Lals parents had five children. Nand Lal was the eldest child. Second was Kaushalya married to some one from Patran Mandi (Punjab). Then came his brother Jagdish Kumar. Shakuntla and Vaishno Devi were 4th and 5th children of their parents. According to Nand Lal, Vaishno Devi was also married to Pawan Kumar on December 10, 1989. Pawan Kumar and his parents harassed Shakuntla on account of dowry. She used to convey these facts to them. Pawan Kumar received cash and as well as other items from time to time. Shakuntla was also often beaten. The couple had two sons. At some stage Pawan Kumar desired to remarry and had settled a match somewhere but when Nand Lal was told about this it was suggested to him that it would be better if Vaishno Devi was given in marriage to Pawan Kumar in order to make Shakuntla happy. This was agreed and the marriage was performed. At that time Shakuntla Devi was not in proper frame of mind and was somewhat disturbed. The marriage of Vaishno Devi with Pawan Kumar was performed by taking the necessary rounds around the fire. After a year they had a son. Pawan Kumar would also beat Vaishno Devi on the ground that he did not receive adequate dowry and if he had married in some other family he would have fetched more dowry. The marriage of Vaishno Devi with Pawan Kumar was performed by taking the necessary rounds around the fire. After a year they had a son. Pawan Kumar would also beat Vaishno Devi on the ground that he did not receive adequate dowry and if he had married in some other family he would have fetched more dowry. On the subject to marriage Nand Lal was cross- examined and a suggestion was put to him that after marriage Pawan Kumar and Vaishno Devi had gone to Shimla for honey-moon which he denied. However, he admitted that photographs Ex. DD and Ex. DE of Pawan Kumar, Vaishno Devi and their child. Nand Lal was confronted with the previous statement to the police where he had not stated that Pawan Kumars parents wanted Pawan Kumar to remarry and also not stated that on a visit to Kaithal he had been told by them that Pawan Kumar would be remarried and it would be better if Vaishno Devi was given in marriage to him. He went on to state that Pawan wanted to remarry as Shakuntla was a simpleton. Suggestion was also put to him that Shakuntla and Vaishno Devi would fight as Shakuntla was imbalanced and would beat Vaishno Devi. The suggestion was denied. The further suggestion put to him that Vaishno Devi had been "settled" with Pawan Kumar since Shakuntla was unable to perform matrimonial duties as she was suffering from some mental ailment. The suggestion was denied. 11. In his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code Pawan Kumar was careful to deny marriage with Vaishno Devi but admitted that she bore him a son after a year of the marriage. He went on to state that first wife Shakuntla suffered from mental disease and would fight with the family and would not perform her matrimonial duties. Vaishno Devi was "settled" with him by her parents since Shakuntla was not performing her duties. At one point Pawan Kumar while referring to two letters identified "the handwriting of my wife." He, however, admitted that photograph Ex. DD was taken at Shimla where he had gone with Vaishno Devi for honeymoon. He stated that first marriage and the subsequent arrangement had been done by Dharam Pal and Chandgi Ram. 12. The question to be determined is whether or not Vaishno Devi was married to Pawan Kumar. DD was taken at Shimla where he had gone with Vaishno Devi for honeymoon. He stated that first marriage and the subsequent arrangement had been done by Dharam Pal and Chandgi Ram. 12. The question to be determined is whether or not Vaishno Devi was married to Pawan Kumar. Was their relationship a settlement or arrangement and nor marriage ? It is true that if the husband has a wife who is alive then he cannot legally marry another woman. The second marriage would be a void one. But these are questions which affect civil rights of the parties and do not make a difference in the operation of the criminal law. Pawan Kumar admits that Vaishno Devi was "settled" with him by her parents since Pawan Kumars first wife Shakuntla, Vaishno Devis sister, was not able to perform her matrimonial duties. Pawan Kumar had two sons from his first marriage and he also had a son from Vaishno Devi. The arrangement had been finalised through some mediators. After the so called marriage, the couple had spent their honeymoon in Shimla. The findings of the trial court that this was a marriage for all intents and purposes is perfectly correct. Pawan Kumar did not deny that marriage performed with Vaishno Devi on December 10, 1989 had been by going round the fire four times. This was categoric statement of Nand Lal which went unchallenged in cross-examination. The second marriage was a bigamous one since Pawan Kumars first wife was still alive and his first marriage had not been declared to be void by court of competent jurisdiction. 13. In Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 713 it was held that even though the second bigamous marriage was void, it cannot be said that no offence under Section 494 had been committed because voidness of marriage only leads to civil consequences arising from such a marriage but the spouse could be guilty of bigamy under section 494 Indian Penal Code. Similar was the position declared by the Allahabad High Court in Durgawati v. State and others (supra) wherein it was held that the second marriage, though null and void, has to be regarded as a subsisting fact and in that sense it cannot be said to be non est in law or nullity until it is declared null and void by a decree of nullity. The marriage must be regarded as subsisting and the parties thereto husband and wife for all purposes. It seems that the law recognises the relationship similar between Pawan Kumar and Vaishno Devi as marriage for all intents and purposes although the marriage is one which is null and void but until this is declared to be null and void it is a subsisting fact. The relationship between Pawan Kumar and Vaishno Devi was a de facto marriage although it would have failed the test of a de jure marriage. The evidence has established that marriage ceremony had taken place in December 10, 1989 whereafter couple had son and lived together as husband and wife in a de facto marital relationship. 14. There is sufficient evidence in this case that Pawan Kumar and his parents had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demand. The last incident of harassment was when panchayat was convened about 15 days before Vaishno Devis death at the house of the accused and the accused had been requested not to harass Vaishno Devi. The members of the panchayat and Nand Lal had also asked the accused to stop harassing the two ladies (Shakuntla and Vaishno Devi) and told the accused that they would give whatever was possible in due course. Prior to this panchayat there had been instances of harassment and beating of Vaishno Devi for not getting adequate dowry. Vaishno Devi had told these incidents to her brother. After six months of the marriage accused had demanded Rs. 50,000/- to purchase plot and a scooter. Nand Lal could not give money but promised to arrange for it. However, he gave an old scooter to Pawan Kumar which the returned after six months and again asked for Rs. 50,000/- and a new scooter. Vaishno Devi was also pestered. This is sufficient evidence to establish the ingredients of Section 304-B and to invoke the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The trial court had rightly convicted Pawan Kumar under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. As regards the evidence against Om Parkash and Mewa Devi, parents of Pawan Kumar, there does not appear to be the same weight as compared to the evidence against Pawan Kumar. It was Pawan Kumar alone who had solemnised marriage with Shakuntla and her sister Vaishno Devi. 15. As regards the evidence against Om Parkash and Mewa Devi, parents of Pawan Kumar, there does not appear to be the same weight as compared to the evidence against Pawan Kumar. It was Pawan Kumar alone who had solemnised marriage with Shakuntla and her sister Vaishno Devi. The harassment and cruelty meted out to Vaishno Devi was much more by Pawan Kumar as compared to that given by Om Parkash and Mewa Devi. Therefore, appeal filed by Om Parkash and Mewa Devi is accepted and they are acquitted of the charges. 16. Pawan Kumar has shown himself to be a greedy individual who was not satisfied with his first marriage and went on to marry second time. Pawan Kumar harassed both his wives and his second wife died of burns otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage. Therefore, Pawan Kumar deserves no mercy. Pawan Kumars appeal is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed. His conviction and sentence is maintained. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo remaining portion of his sentence. Appeal dismissed.