JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1986 passed by the J.M.F.C. (Transport), Berhampur in I.C.C. case No.10 of 1984 (T.R. No.502/84) wherein he acquitted the Respondents of the charge under Section 494 and 494/109 of I.P.C. 2. The appellant was the complainant and the Respondents were accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the aforesaid complaint case. As per the complaint petition the complainant married accused No.1 on 19.1.1974 in village Morudi in accordance with their Brahmin caste custom and Hindu rites. At the time of mar¬riage, father of the complainant gave gold ornaments weighing five tolas and silver ornaments of about 50 tolas, besides other house-hold articles, as dowry to accused No.1. The couple led a happy conjugal life in the matrimonial home for about three years, whereafter dissensions arose between the complainant in one hand and the Respondents and their family members on the other, for non-fulfilment of their further demand of dowry. Ultimately, accused No.1 left the complainant in her parental house with an animus of desertion. So, the father of the com¬plainant with much difficulty arranged Rs.10,000/-, paid the same to accused No.1 and escorted his daughter to her in-laws house. After some days, again the accused persons ill-treated and tor¬tured the complainant and ultimately drove her out from the matrimonial home. In the meantime, while his marriage was sub¬sisting with the complainant, accused No.1 being abetted by co-accused married one Suprava on 5.3.1983 in Manurikalua temple. Finding no other way, the complainant was compelled to file the aforesaid complaint case before the C.J.M., Berhampur against six accused persons, including the Respondents. After recording the initial statement of the complainant, cognizance of the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 of Dowry Prohibi¬tion Act was taken against all the accused persons numbering six and sometime after the case was transferred to the Court of J.M.F.C. (T), who framed charge for the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. against accused No.1 and under Sections 494/109 of I.P.C. against accused No.2 and discharged all other accused persons. The plea of the accused persons was complete denial of the marriage of the accused No.1 either with the complainant or Suprava Das. 3. In order to prove her case the complainant examined 7 witnesses including herself as against one by the accused per¬sons. The plea of the accused persons was complete denial of the marriage of the accused No.1 either with the complainant or Suprava Das. 3. In order to prove her case the complainant examined 7 witnesses including herself as against one by the accused per¬sons. The evidence of P.W.6 recorded before charge was expunged as his attendance could not be secured for cross-examination by the defence. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court held the complainant to have failed to prove that Saptapadi was performed during solemnization of the marriage of the com¬plainant with the accused No.1 before the marriage altar; that the complainant and the accused-Respondent No.1 being within the degree of prohibited relationship, the marriage between them was invalid and that the complainant failed to prove the second marriage of accused No.1 with Suprava and accordingly dismissed the complaint petition and acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved with the order of acquittal, the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellant’) preferred the present appeal against the accused persons (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondents’). 4. It is an admitted fact that the Appellant is the daugh¬ter of sister of her father. So in terms of Section 3(g)(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short ‘the Act’,), they are within the degree of prohibited relationship. As such their marriage is invalid unless custom and usages governing the parties sanctions such a marriage as envisaged under Section 5(iv) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is custom in the caste of the Appellant and Respondents sanction¬ing marriage between the sister’s daughter and brother’s son. When such a custom is prevalent in the Caste of the parties the trial Court erred in holding that the marriage between the Appel¬lant and Respondent No.1 was invalid, on the ground of prohibited degree of relationship. 6. He also submitted that there is ample evidence on record to hold that Saptapadi was performed before the marriage altar at the time of solemnization of marriage between the Appel¬lant and Respondent No.1. Only because evidence of some of the witnesses is silent with regard to performance of Saptapadi, the trial Court ought not have held that it was not performed. He further submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record to come to a conclusion that there was a valid marriage between the Appellant and Suprava. Accordingly, he persuaded to allow the appeal. He further submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record to come to a conclusion that there was a valid marriage between the Appellant and Suprava. Accordingly, he persuaded to allow the appeal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents, supporting the trial Court judgment fervently urged to dismiss the appeal. Section 3(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act defines custom and usage as follows :- “3(a) the expressions ‘custom’ and ‘usage’ signify any rule which, having been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time, has obtained the force of law among Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group or family: Provided that the rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public policy; and Provided further that in the case of a rule applicable only to a family it has not been discontinued by the family.” As per this provision, to have the force of law, custom or usage in any local area, caste, tribe or family must be continu¬ous for a long time. There must be uniformity. It must not be against public policy and unreasonable. In the instant case, there is no evidence to show specifically that custom of marriage between sister’s daughter and brother’s son in the caste of Appellant and Respondent No.1, in their respective localities or families is prevalent. The only evidence available on record in this respect is that the marriage between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 was performed in accordance with their caste custom and Hindu rites and that one sister of the Appellant mar¬ried another cousin brother (father’s sister’s son). This evi¬dence is not sufficient in terms of Section 3 of the Act to show that the Appellant and Respondent No.1 are permitted to marry by their caste or local custom. So the trial Court rightly held that the marriage between the Appellant and Respondent No.1 is invalid since they are within the prohibited degree of relationship and there is no custom or usage sanctioning such a marriage. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act 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 thereto. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act 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 thereto. (2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the 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 steps is taken.” 7. In the instant case except P.Ws. 1 and 5 all other witnesses have stated that during the solemnization of marriage between Appellant and Respondent No.1 Saptapadi was performed before the sacred fire. Only because P.Ws. 1 and 5 did not depose so, the trial Court ought not have disbelieved the evidence of all other witnesses in that respect. Moreover, as envisaged under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, quoted above, if customary rites and ceremonies in a marriage of either party thereto in¬clude Saptapadi, the marriage would be invalid in absence of performance of such rite. In the present cases there is no iota of evidence to show that performance of Saptapadi is prevalent in the caste or locality of the Appellant or Respondent No.1. Hence, even if it is held that the Appellant failed to prove performance of Saptapadi still then the trial Court ought not have held the marriage to be invalid on that ground. 8. With regard to marriage of Respondent No.1 with Supra¬va, daughter of Mangalu Rath, it is found from the evidence on record that out of 7 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecu¬tion only P.Ws. 1, 5 and 7 deposed with regard to their marriage. P.W.5 is the father and P.W.7 is the paternal uncle of the Appel¬lant (P.W.1). P.W.1 stated that Respondent No.1 married Suprava and the co-accused-Respondent No.2 assisted him in the said marriage. She further stated that she herself and her father (P.W.5) dissuaded Mangalu Rath not to give her daughter in mar¬riage to Respondent No.1, but it did not cut any ice. On the other hand, P.W.5 deposed that he himself and his son went to the house of Mangalu Rath and dissuaded him not to give his daughter in marriage to Respondent No.1. So, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 are inconsistent in this regard. On the other hand, P.W.5 deposed that he himself and his son went to the house of Mangalu Rath and dissuaded him not to give his daughter in marriage to Respondent No.1. So, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 are inconsistent in this regard. As transpires from the evidence of P.W.7, sometime in the year 1983 Respondent No.1 married Suprava in Manurikalua temple. Ceremonies like Batabaran, Hast¬ganthi, Bidi and Homa were performed in the said temple. In cross-examination this witness failed to give the date and month of marriage between the Respondent No.1 and Suprava. He also could not name the Purohit and barber, who were said to have been engaged in the said marriage. He went to the extent of stating that P.W.5 accompanied him to Manurikalua Thakurani temple to see the marriage between Respondent No.1 and Suprava, but the evi¬dence of P.W.5 is conspicuously silent in this regard. Evidence of P.W.7 further goes to show that Respondent No.1 and Suprava obtained a receipt in token of their marriage from the temple authority. The said receipt has not been proved. Neither the priest of the temple nor the person who granted the said receipt has been examined. As stated earlier P.Ws. 5 and 7 are father and paternal uncle respectively of the Appellant. So, it is natural to expect that they would depose in her favour. Under such cir¬cumstance, it does not inspire confidence that P.Ws.5 and 7 or either of them have/has seen the solemnization of marriage be¬tween Respondent No.1 and Suprava. Furthermore, it transpires from the evidence of P.W.1 that she issued a notice through her lawyer vide Ext.1 to the Respondent No.1; perusal of which re¬flects that the latter took the daughter of Mangalu Rath as his second wife secretly. In other words, there was no solemnization of a legal and valid marriage between Respondent No.1 and Supra¬va. As discussed earlier the trial Court rightly held the mar¬riage between Appellant and Respondent No.1 to be an invalid one. Strict proof of solemnization of a legal and valid first marriage and subsistence of that marriage while contracting the second marriage, with observance of all necessary ceremonies, is essen¬tial to establish and prove the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. In the case at hand, prosecution miserably failed to prove so. So, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused-Respondents. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.