( 1 ) (CRIMINAL Appeal under Section 378 (4) CRL. P. C. against the judgment dated 28/06/1999 in CC. No:111 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chennur, Adilabad District.) ( 2 ) THE appellant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. as against R1 to R7/a1 to A7 under Section 494 IPC as against A1 and under Section 494 read with 109 IPC as against A2 to A7. The said matter, C. C. No. 111 of 1996 was tried by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chennur, Adilabad District wherein the learned Magistrate appreciated the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and Exs. P1 to P3 and ultimately recorded an acquittal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/complainant preferred the present Criminal Appeal. ( 3 ) THE case of the complainant/p. W. 1 is that she is the legally wedded wife of A1. Their marriage was solemnized about fifteen years back at Velaganoor and consummated about ten years back. Unfortunately, they were not blessed with any issues. A1 sent the complainant to her parents house for the last Ugadi festival. Thereafter, A1 never cared to take her back. The complainants father approached A1 and asked him to take back the complainant, but A1 refused for the same and the complainant has been residing with her parents and leading deserted life. On 19. 10. 1986 at 9 Am, A1 contracted illegal second marriage with A2 at Rajampet in the house of A6. A3 and A4 are parents of A1 and A6 and A7 are parents of A2. A5 is a close associate of A1. A3 to A7 had arranged the second marriage between A1 and A2. A5 acted as purohit and celebrated the said marriage. Thus, A2 to A7 had abetted the offence of bigamy and hence, the complaint was filed under Section 494 IPC and also under Section 494 read with 109 IPC. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that originally, complaint was filed before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Luxettipet. It was taken on file as C. C. No. 339 of 1986 and subsequent there to in view of remand made by this Court, the same was tried as C. C. No. 111 of 1996 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chennur. Heard both the counsel. ( 4 ) SRI. It was taken on file as C. C. No. 339 of 1986 and subsequent there to in view of remand made by this Court, the same was tried as C. C. No. 111 of 1996 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chennur. Heard both the counsel. ( 4 ) SRI. C. R. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel representing appellant/complainant had taken this court through the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and would contend that in the light of this evidence, the second marriage in between A1 and A2 was proved. Learned counsel also would submit that the marriage between P. W. 1 and A1 is not in controversy at all, but however a finding had been recorded by the learned Magistrate that the first marriage was not proved. Learned counsel had taken this Court through the evidence of P. W. 1 and also Exs. P1, 2 and 3, the judicial proceedings which would ultimately establish the marriage in between P. W. 1 and A1. Learned counsel also would submit that even in 313 Cr. P. C. examination, the marriage between P. W. 1 and A1 was specifically admitted by A1 and a finding had been recorded in relation there to. But, despite the same, the Magistrate and totally erred in recording such a finding relating to the proof of marriage in between P. W. 1 and A1. Learned counsel also placed strong reliance on S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami (2001) 7 SCC 487 and Laxmi Devi V. Satya Narayan (1994) 5 SCC 545 in this regard. ( 5 ) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri. Mohd. Osman Shaheed would contend that in view of the provisions of Sections 5,7 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, unless the first marriage is a valid marriage and unless there is proof relating to the second marriage also, conviction cannot be recorded for an offence of Bigamy. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, would submit that relating to the customary rites and ceremonies of a particular marriage, there must be some evidence available on record before the Court. At any rate, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in view of the prior judicial proceedings and also the evidence of P. W. 1 and the admission made by A1 in 313 Cr. At any rate, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in view of the prior judicial proceedings and also the evidence of P. W. 1 and the admission made by A1 in 313 Cr. P. C. examination, the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate in relation to the first marriage cannot be justified and may not be in accordance with law. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in the light of the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate relating to the second marriage, the said findings need not be disturbed since acquittal has been recorded for want of clear proof relating to second marriage. Per contra, Sri. C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing R1 to R7/a1 to A7 would submit that P. W. 1 had not deposed about dattahomam or saptapadi, the essentials required for celebration of a valid marriage among Hindus. The mere fact that there were some judicial proceedings, Exs. P1 to P3 between A1 and P. W. 1 and the mere fact that even in 313 Cr. P. C. examination, A1 admitted about the said marriage, the same would not alter the situation in any way since the required proof is not available on record relating to even the first marriage. Learned counsel further contended that relating to the second marriage, which is said to be bigamous marriage, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 is highly insufficient and hence, acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate is well justified. ( 6 ) THE complainant who was examined as P. W. 1 deposed that she knows the accused. A1 is her husband, A3 is her father-in-law and A4 is her mother-in-law. A2 is the second wife of A1 and A5 is the purohit who celebrate the second marriage. A6 and A7 are father and mother of A2 respectively. P. W. 1 also deposed that she married A1 about 16 or 17 Years ago and the marriage had taken place at Velaganoor at her parents house according to Hindu Customs. A1 tied tali around her neck and A1 also had put Jeelakara bellam and Brahmin had chanted mantras and both of them had taken seven steps. P. W. 1 further deposed that she lived with her husband for about 10 Years and as they failed to get any children, her husband started ill-treating her. A1 tied tali around her neck and A1 also had put Jeelakara bellam and Brahmin had chanted mantras and both of them had taken seven steps. P. W. 1 further deposed that she lived with her husband for about 10 Years and as they failed to get any children, her husband started ill-treating her. About four years back, her father invited her and A1 for Ugadi festival and her husband taken her to her parents house, a day earlier to the festival. In spite of her father inviting him into the house, A1 went away. After fifteen days, her father went to her in-laws house to enquire as to why her husband failed to take her back. Her father informed her that her husband refused to take her. After one month, she came to know that A1 is contemplating to marry second time. Her sisters son informed her that A1 is going to marry another woman. They came to know about this fact in the evening. On the next morning her father, herself and one Pettam Pedda lingaiah went to Rajampet Village. They went to the house of Muddasani Latchalah, A6. P. W. 1 further specifically deposed as under. P. W. 1 was cross examined at length. P. W. 1 deposed that it is not true to say that she herself left her husbands house and came to her fathers house. She also deposed that fifteen days after the festival, her father went to A1s house and enquired about taking P. W. 1 and A1 told her father that he does not want her. She also deposed that they belong to perka caste. She further deposed that it is not true to say that in their caste, there is no custom of going round the fire. P. W. 1 also deposed that she told her advocate about the customs to be observed in the marriage of their case and she denied the suggestion that A1 had not married second time at all. P. W. 2 deposed that the father of P. W. 1 came to him and told him that his son-in-law was going to marry second time and requested to accompany him and he agreed to accompany him. All of them went to Rajampet. P. W. 2 deposed that the father of P. W. 1 came to him and told him that his son-in-law was going to marry second time and requested to accompany him and he agreed to accompany him. All of them went to Rajampet. This witness also deposed that when P. W. 1, her father and this witness went to the house of A6, by that time, they had seen as discussed under: this witness also was cross examined at length. P. W. 3 is the father of P. W. 1 who had well supported the version of P. Ws. 1 and 2. Ex. P1 is the certified copy of the counter in M. C. No. 2 of 1988 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet. Ex. P2 is the certified copy of the order dated 01. 02. 1990 and Ex. P3 is the copy of the order in Crl. R. C. No. 185 of 1990 dated 21. 03. 1991 on the file of this Court. On the strength of this evidence, certain findings had been recorded by the learned Magistrate and ultimately recorded an acquittal. Section 494 IPC dealing with marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife reads as under: 494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife:- whoever, having a husband or wife living, merits in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description being a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Exception:- This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife had been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, ( 7 ) NOR to any person who contracts a marriage during the lifetime of a former husband or wife is, if such husband or wife, at the time of subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the span of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive even at the time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge. In view of Section 5 read along with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there cannot be any doubt or controversy when the other spouse is living contracting second marriage would be bigamous marriage. The twin grounds on which acquittal had been recorded are that, there is no proper proof relating to the first marriage and equally so in relation to the second marriage. Apart from the judicial proceedings, Exs. P1 to P3, the very suggestion put to P. W. 1 would show that R1/a1 had never seriously disputed his marriage with P. W. 1. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act dealing with ceremonies for Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as follows: 7. Ceremonies for a Hindu Marriage:- (1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party there to. (2) Whether such rites and ceremonies include Saptapadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. ( 8 ) IN Bhaurao v. State of Maharashtra 1965 (2) Crl. L. J. 544 = AIR 1965 SC 1564 , it was held as under: section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes the marriage between two Hindus void if two conditions are satisfied: (i) the marriage is solemnized after the commencement of the Act, and (ii) at the date of such marriage, either party had a spouse living. The word solemnize means, in connection with a marriage, to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form. It follows, therefore, that unless the marriage is celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form it cannot be said to be solemnized. It is, therefore, essential, for the purpose of S. 17 of the Act, that the marriage to which S. 494, I. P. C. , applies on account of the provisions of the Act, should have been celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form. Merely going through certain ceremonies with the intention that the parties be taken to be married, will not make the ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by any established custom. (Held that the ceremonies performed were not there prescribed by law or approved by custom, and that the marriage did not come within purview of Section7 ). Merely going through certain ceremonies with the intention that the parties be taken to be married, will not make the ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by any established custom. (Held that the ceremonies performed were not there prescribed by law or approved by custom, and that the marriage did not come within purview of Section7 ). ( 9 ) PRIMA facie, the expression whoever marries in S. 494, Penal Code 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 not marriage in the eye of law. The bare fact of a man and a woman living as husband and wife does not, at any rate, normally give them the status of husband and wife. In Priya Bala v Suresh Chandra AIR 1971 SC 1153 , while dealing with Section 494 IPC, it was held that proof of solemnization of second marriage in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to parties is a must for conviction for bigamy. Mere admission by accused that he had contracted second marriage is not enough. In Kanwal Ram v. H. P. Administration AIR 1966 SC 614 it was held that in a bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact, that is to say, the essential ceremonies constituting it, must be proved. Admission of marriage by the accused is not evidence of it for the purpose of proving marriage in an adultery or bigamy case. ( 10 ) A similar view was expressed in S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami (supra ). The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision while dealing with Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [as inserted by the Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967] held that in the conduct of second marriage celebrated without the ceremony of Saptapadi, observed at para 21 as under: saptapadi was held to be an essential ceremony for a valid marriage only in cases where it was admitted by the parties that as per the form of marriage applicable to them that was an essential ceremony. The appellant in the instant case, however, had no such case that saptapadi was an essential ceremony for a valid marriage as per the personal law applicable whereas the provisions contained in Section 7-A are applicable to the parties. Reliance was also placed on Laxmi Devi V. Satya Narayan (supra) and Bhaurao v. State of Maharashtra (supra ). In Laxmi Devi V. Satya Narayan (supra), it was held that in the absence of proof of saptapadi, the factum of second marriage not made our and however, since accused husband found living with the alleged second wife as husband and wife, the Supreme Court directed him (husband) to pay Rs. 25,000/-to his first wife (appellant) as compensation. It is no doubt true that the judgment of a criminal Court and the findings if any recorded by a criminal Court may not be binding on the Civil Court while the parties intend to work out their remedies arising out of the civil rights. It is also no doubt true that the evidence of P. Ws. 1,3 and P. W. 2, if carefully scrutinized, they had not deposed in detail relating to the first marriage. The reason being that the parties proceeded on the ground that there is no controversy at all relating to validity of the first marriage. Even the suggestions put by the accused in cross examination of P. W. 1 would be suggestive of the fact that there is no serious controversy relating to the same. Even in 313 Cr. P. C. examination, A1 admitted about this marriage. In the prior judicial proceedings also, the relationship of wife and husband in between A1 and P. W. 1 was never called in question or controverter. Taking the conduct of the parties into consideration and also of overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate relating to the marriage in between P. W. 1 and A1 cannot be sustained. It is no doubt true that whenever customary rites or absence of saptapadi or other ceremonies in the customary practice of marriage of a particular community is a ground, the same may have to be proved by adducing acceptable evidence in this regard. It is no doubt true that whenever customary rites or absence of saptapadi or other ceremonies in the customary practice of marriage of a particular community is a ground, the same may have to be proved by adducing acceptable evidence in this regard. But it is pertinent to note that in view of the prior judicial proceedings, the parties proceeded on the footing that there is no controversy of the marriage as between P. W. 1 and A1. However, coming to the next question, the evidence available on record is that of P. Ws. 1,3 and another independent witness, P. W. 2. Learned Magistrate discussed the evidence relating to the proof of second marriage in detail and as a question of fact, recorded that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to establish the proof of bigamous marriage. On a careful scrutiny of the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate in this regard, in relation to the second marriage bigamous marriage, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said reasons cannot be in any way found fault with for the reason that even if the second marriage is admitted by the accused, the same may have to be proved so as to attract the ingredients of Section 494 IPC. So far as the findings of the Magistrate in relation to second marriage are concerned, the said findings are hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate also is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed.