JUDGMENT : DR. G. YETHIRAJULU, J.:— Crl. A. No. 1901 of 1999 was filed by the complainant. The appellant filed a private complaint against 21 accused alleging that they have committed offences under Sections 494, 323, 506, 341 read with 34 I.P.C. and it was numbered as C.C. No. 56 of 1993 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur Charges for the offences are under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 341, 506(II) of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against all the accused. They pleaded not guilty of the offences and claimed for trail. During the pendency of the case, A-20 died, therefore, the case against him stood abated on 14-02-1996. 2. The complainant, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and did not mark any documents. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. 3. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence, found the accused not guilty of the offences covered by the charges and recorded their acquittal through the Judgment dated 05-10-1999. The complainant, being aggrieved by the Judgment of the lower Court, preferred this Appeal challenging the validity and legality of the acquittal of the accused. The case of the prosecution leading to the acquittal of the accused in C.C. 169 of 1996 is briefly as follows: The marriage of P.W. 1 was solemnized with A-1 according to Hindu rites and caste custom on 26-05-1991 at Upalapadu village at the residence of A-1. Subsequent to the marriage, A-1 developed vices and started illicit intimacy with one Tatineni Radha i.e., A-2 and declared that he wants to marry A-2 for getting more dowry from her. On 14-02-1993, P.W. 1 and her father sent P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and one P. Ramana Rao to Uppalapadu village for mediation at about 6.00 p.m. and when they went to the house of A-1, they found the arrangements of Shamiyanas, white washing of the house and new paint to the door frames. They approached A-1, A-3 and A-4 and told them the purpose of their visit. The accused replied that A-1 was going to marry A-2 who was already pregnant and the marriage Muhurtham was fixed at about 8.50 p.m. on the same night. The mediators returned to Macherla and informed the same to her father. They approached A-1, A-3 and A-4 and told them the purpose of their visit. The accused replied that A-1 was going to marry A-2 who was already pregnant and the marriage Muhurtham was fixed at about 8.50 p.m. on the same night. The mediators returned to Macherla and informed the same to her father. Immediately P.W. 1, her father and the mediators went to Uppalapadu at about 8.45 p.m. and on reaching the scene of offence, they found a Purohit chanting mantras, A-3, A-4, A-7 and A-8 sitting behind A-1 and A-2 along with other accused. On seeing P.W. 1 and her father, A-3 to A-21 surrounded them and all of them abused her in filthy language and threatened that they would beat her. When P.W. 1 and her parents requested A-7 and A-8 not to destroy the life of P.W. 1, A-15 and A-20 asked them not to make any nuisance and pushed them to a distance. In the meanwhile, the marriage rites were performed and A-1 came against her shouting at the top that he would do as he likes and who are they to question him. He also abused P.W. 1 as ‘Lanja’ stating that there was marital relationship between himself and her at any time. He slapped her by questioning as to how she came to that place. The other accused also abused her and her father and they were restrained from proceeding towards Shamiyanas. Subsequently, a complaint was given at Veldurti Police Station, but the police did not take any action, therefore, they filed the private complaint. 4. The case of the defence is that he never married A-2 during the subsistence of the marriage with P.W. 1. No arrangements have been made for the marriage and the complainant and P.W. 2 foisted the case against them. 5. In the light of the contentions, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for any of the offences mentioned in the charges? 6. The complainant as P.W. 1 deposed that her marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and caste customs. During the subsistence of her marriage with A-1, on 14-08-1993, A-1 again married A-2 at Uppalapadu village at his house. She also witnessed the said second marriage. By the date of the second marriage, she was at the house of her parents at Macherla. During the subsistence of her marriage with A-1, on 14-08-1993, A-1 again married A-2 at Uppalapadu village at his house. She also witnessed the said second marriage. By the date of the second marriage, she was at the house of her parents at Macherla. Her father called P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and one P. Ramana Rao for mediation between herself and A-1. On that date she has no information about the marriage between the A-1 and A-2. The mediators went to the house of A-1 for mediation and returned to Macherla at 7.15 p.m. and informed that they saw the arrangements of marriage between A-1 and A-2 at the house of A-1. They also found the white washing of the house and Shamiyanas in front of the house. They further informed that the marriage is going to be performed on that day. Immediately she along with her parents and mediators went to he house of A-1 at Uppalapadu at about 8.45 p.m. By that time; A-1 to A-4 A-7 and A-8 were sitting in the marriage Mandapam. One Purohit was also chanting mantras. A-5, A-6, A-9, to A-21 were also present at the venue and participated in the marriage ceremony. Except A-1 and A-2 all other accused came to them, surrounded and threatened to leave the place without making any galata. She and her parents requested A-7 and A-8 not to spoil her life, but they did not hear their request. A-15 to A-20 surrounded her and threatened to kill if they do not leave the house. They also pushed her and men away, but in the meanwhile A-1 tied Thali on the neck of A-2 and came against them with loud noise that he has no connection with her and slapped her on her check and pushed her parents. Later they went to Veldurti police Station and lodged a complaint. 7. In the cross-examination, she stated that her parents are residents of Mecherla. As per the custom Zeera and jaggary will be mixed and put on the head of bride and bridegroom. But there is no fire ritual at the time of marriage. Accordingly to their custom, after tying the tali, black beed chain would also be tied. 7. In the cross-examination, she stated that her parents are residents of Mecherla. As per the custom Zeera and jaggary will be mixed and put on the head of bride and bridegroom. But there is no fire ritual at the time of marriage. Accordingly to their custom, after tying the tali, black beed chain would also be tied. There was a custom of seeing Arundhathi star and all the formalities were performed in her marriage with A-1 She further deposed that the distance between Uppalapadu and Macherla is 15 kilometres and there are number of buses plying in between Uppalapadu and Macherla. The marriage between A-1 and A-2 took place at the house of A-1. About two to three hundred people gathered for the said marriage. At the time of the marriage bajantris and one Purohit was present. Pelli Mandapam was also arranged on 14-03-1993 she came to know about the proposed marriage between A-1 and A-2 Immediately they proceeded to Upalapadu and reached to that place at 8.45 p.m. On that day at about 10.00 p.m., she visited Veldurthi Police Station and presented a complaint. She did not mention in her private complaint about the complaint in the Veldurthi Police Station. She did not approach any superior police officer to get her complaint registered as crime. She did not give any lawyer notice to A-1 for restitution of conjugal rights at any time. She denied a suggestion that the marriage between A-1 and A-2 never took place and she never visited the alleged marriage along with other mediators. She also denied a suggestion that the accused did not commit the offence. She denied a further suggestion that in order to inconvenience the accused, who is coming from Macherla to Guntur, and in order to get over the jurisdiction, she foisted the present case against the accused or that she unnecessarily implicated A-3 to A-21. She also denied a suggestion that A-1 did not marry A-2 at Uplapadu. 8. P.W. 2 the father of P.W. 1 deposed that after the marriage. P.W. 1 and A-1 never lead conjugal life and A-1 developed extra martial relationship with A-2 on 14-02-1993 A-1 married A-2 at Uppalapadu during the subsistence of the marriage between P.W. 1 and A-1. He witnessed the marriage between A-1 and A-2 on 14-02-1993, he sent P.Ws. 8. P.W. 2 the father of P.W. 1 deposed that after the marriage. P.W. 1 and A-1 never lead conjugal life and A-1 developed extra martial relationship with A-2 on 14-02-1993 A-1 married A-2 at Uppalapadu during the subsistence of the marriage between P.W. 1 and A-1. He witnessed the marriage between A-1 and A-2 on 14-02-1993, he sent P.Ws. 3 and 4 and P. Ramana Rao to Upalapadu to mediate the matter in between P.W. 1 and A-1 and they left Macherla at about 4.00 p.m. They returned from Macherla and informed that the arrangements for marriage were made in front of the house of A-1. They requested A-1's parents but they did not agree and the marriage took place. Later they all visited Upalapadu at 8.45 p.m. and by that time, A-1 A-2 and their parents were sitting in the pendal and one Purohit chanting manthras. A-5 to A-17 and A-19 to A-21 were present in the pendal. They were seen by all the accused and A-15 to A-17 and A-19 and other accused pushed them except A-1 and A-2. His wife, himself and P.W. 1 requested the parents of A-1 not to harass P.W. 1 but they did not heed to the request. A-15 to A-19 pushed them. P.W. 1, his wife and himself and 3 other mediators came forward. A-1 tied Tali to A-2's neck and later A-1 came down towards them and stated that there is no relationship with his daughter and threatened them. A-1 also slapped on the face of P.W. 1 and pushed them. A-1 and other accused threatened to kill them. Then he went to Veldurthi and lodged a complaint to the police. But the police did no take any action. Hence, the present complaint in the across-examination, he stated that he knows P.W. 1's presenting Section 498-A report before Macherla Police Station and the police Station and the police registered the case. He know that A-1 was arrested and subsequently he was released on bail by Macherla Court. Before registration of case under Section 498-A I.P.C., he sent the mediators for amicable settlement of taking P.W. 1 and leading conjugal life. P.W. 1's marriage was performed in temple and Homam was not arranged in the said marriage, but rest of the ceremonies were performed as per Hindu Law and caste, custom. Before registration of case under Section 498-A I.P.C., he sent the mediators for amicable settlement of taking P.W. 1 and leading conjugal life. P.W. 1's marriage was performed in temple and Homam was not arranged in the said marriage, but rest of the ceremonies were performed as per Hindu Law and caste, custom. Four months after the marriage, he came to know that A-1 was having illicit intimacy with A-2. He was also present along with P.W. 1 at the time of lodging complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C. He came to know that A-1 is proposing to marry A-2 is also residing at Macherla along with her family members. He denied a suggestion that the marriage between A-1 and A-2 never took place as he never visited the marriage and the accused never committed any offence including assault or criminal intimidation to them. 9. P.W. 3, one of the mediators deposed that the marriage of A-1 was performed with A-2 in the month of May, 1991. He was present at the time of the marriage and also acted as a marriage elder at the time of the their marriage. Subsequently, he came to know that A-1, A-3 and A-4 drove P.W. 1 outside on the ground that she failed to bring the amount from her parents. On 14-02-1993, P.W. 4, himself and one Ramana Rao were requested to act as mediators to solve the dispute between A-1 and P.W. 1. On the said day, all of them visited Macherla at about 3.00 p.m. and took instructions from P.Ws. 1 and 2. On the same day at about 6.00 p.m., they proceeded to Uppalapadu to the house of A-1 and they found arrangements of Shamiyanas white washing of the walls. They came to know that they are arranging marriage of A-1 with some other person and the marriage took place at 8.52 p.m. with the daughter of A-7. They immediately rushed to Macherla and gave the information to P.W. 2 and his wife and P.W. 1. Then P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and his wife and all the mediators visited Uppalapadu at 8.30 p.m. By that time, the marriage ceremony was going on. The accused questioned them as to why they came to stop the marriage and they threatened them if they stay any more at that place. Then P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and his wife and all the mediators visited Uppalapadu at 8.30 p.m. By that time, the marriage ceremony was going on. The accused questioned them as to why they came to stop the marriage and they threatened them if they stay any more at that place. About 20 persons gathered in support of A-3 and A-4 and pushed them away from that place. By that time A-1 came forward by saying that he has no connection with P.W. 1 and why she has came to this place and beat P.W. 1 used filthy language towards her. At that time one person resisted the attitude of A-1, but his efforts are futile. 10. P.W. 4 another mediator deposed that on 15-12-1992, when one P. Ramana Rao and himself were proceeding to hospital, A-1 met them at Park Centre at Macherla. At that time A-1 informed that he has no connection with P.W. 1 and he is going to marry another lady. On 14-02-1993, P.W. 3 called him and One Ramana Rao and informed that they have to visit P.W. 2 to resolve the dispute between A-1 and P.W.-1, They all went to the house of P.W. 2 in the evening and as per the instructions of the P.W. 2, they visited Uppalapadu at 6.00 p.m. and by that time A-1, A-3 and A-4 were present. They also observed putting of Shamiyana in front of the house of A-1 and walls white washed informed A-3 and A-4 for the purpose of their coming to Uppalapadu. But A-3 and A-4 said that A-1 is going to marry another lady on the same day night at about 8.52 p.m. They also informed that the proposed lady who was intended to marry was already pregnant. Then they all went to Macherla and informed to P.W. 1, Immediately all of them along with P.Ws. 1 and 2 visited Uppalapadu at 8.30 p.m. and by the time they visited the village, the marriage celebration was going on A-1, A-3. A-4, A-2 and her parents were sitting on the stage. Some of the persons were also gathered adjacent to the dais. Except A-1 and A-2, all the others persons surrounded them and questioned as to why they came to Uppalapadu to disturb the marriage and asked them to go away. A-4, A-2 and her parents were sitting on the stage. Some of the persons were also gathered adjacent to the dais. Except A-1 and A-2, all the others persons surrounded them and questioned as to why they came to Uppalapadu to disturb the marriage and asked them to go away. In the meanwhile, A-1 questioned P.W. 1 as to why they came to their village and also told that he has no relation with her. At that time they also threatened them to kill unless they leave the place immediately. Immediately P.Ws. 1 and 2 and his wife visited Veldurthi Police Station and lodged a complaint. Thereafter they all came to Macherla. At that time they were surrendered by A-3 and A-4 and other persons, and the maniage celebration was going on. He denied a suggestion that since P.W. 1 is related to him, he is speaking falsehood. 11. P.W. 5, a resident of Macherla, deposed that he knows A-7 belongs to Macherla. He attended the marriage of A-1 with A-2 on 14-02-1993. A-7 invited him to attended the marriage and therefore, on his request he attended the marriage. The Muhurtham was fixed at 8.52 p.m. He attended the marriage at about 7.45 p.m. The marriage of A-2 was performed as per their caste and custom. All the formalities performed in the marriage. 20 minutes before tying the thread, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and along with three persons came there to the venue. At that time the parents of A-1 and A-7 and his wife and three persons approached P.W. 1 and their parents and a galata took place. About 30 to 40 persons were also gathered. At that time P.W. 2 requested A-7 not to harm to P.W. 1. The accused threatened P.W. 2 with dire consequences and pushed them away. P.W. 2 and others trying to go forward. At that time A-1 after tying the thread came to P.W. 1 and beat her on cheeks. He tried to pacify the matter, but nobody heeded to his words. At present. A-1 and A-2 living as husband and wife in the village. At the time of marriage A-2 has given the coloured rice in the hands of A-1 and A-1 kept the rice in one plate and thereafter the parents of A-2 washed the legs of A-1. The above said custom prevails the in the marriage of their community. At present. A-1 and A-2 living as husband and wife in the village. At the time of marriage A-2 has given the coloured rice in the hands of A-1 and A-1 kept the rice in one plate and thereafter the parents of A-2 washed the legs of A-1. The above said custom prevails the in the marriage of their community. There are some differences in their marriage and the marriage of A-1 with A-2. He did not see the formalities and the customs followed by A-2 and her family members. 12. From the version of the prosecution witnesses, by the time they went to the village and A-1's house, they found Shamiyana erected and white washing done to the walls. They were also informed that A-1 is going to marry A-2 at 8.52 p.m. Immediately, they informed to P.W. 2 and all of them came to the marriage venue at about 8.40 p.m. When they proceeded towards dais, the accused obstructed them and questioned as to why they came to stop the marriage A-1 also came and stated that there is no relationship between himself and P.W. 1 any more and he is going to marry. They further stated that while the galata is going on, the ceremonies also went on and as the accused obstructed them, they went away. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 did not disclose about the essential ceremonies of Sapthapadi or Homam etc. which are the essential requirements of a valid marriage. In order to attract the bigomy, the complainant has to prove that she is the legally wedded wife and then A-1 committed bigomy during the subsistence of the marriage by marrying A-2. Unless the witnesses speak about the ceremonies performed at the time of marriage, it cannot be recognized as a valid marriage. The prosecution failed to prove the essentials ceremonies of a valid marriage, therefore, the lower Court rightly came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. From the evidence, there is a doubt about the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others at the scene of offence, therefore, there is any amount of doubt regarding the commission of offences by any of the accused. 13. 1 to 3 and others at the scene of offence, therefore, there is any amount of doubt regarding the commission of offences by any of the accused. 13. ln the light of the above circumstances, I find no grounds to interface with the Judgments of lower Court and accordingly, the Judgment of the lower Court is confirmed. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is not made out against the accused, they cannot escape liability under Section 494 read with 511 I.P.C., therefore A-1, A-2 and others shall be convicted for the offence under Section 494 read with 511 I.P.C. though not under Section 494 IPC, therefore it has to be examined whether under the facts of this case, the attempt to commit bigomy is proved. 15. In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, 1995 SCC (Cri) 569, the Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 494 I.P.C. held as follows:— “The necessary ingredients of Sections 494 are: (1) having a husband or wife living (2) marries in any case; (3) which such marriage is void (4) by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife.” 16. In L. Obulamma v. L Venkata Reddy, (1979) 3 SCC 80 : AIR 1979 SC 848 , the Supreme Court while dealing with Section 494 I.P.C. held that: “Where there was absolutely no evidence to prove that any of the two essentials i.e. Datta Homa and Saptapadi had been performed at the time of second marriage and the existence of the custom in the community to put the ‘Yarn Thread’ instead of ‘Mangal Sutra’ was neither mentioned in the complaint nor proved in the evidence the conviction under S. 494, I.P.C. could not be sustained.” 17. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused committed the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. by contracting the marriage with the second respondent, therefore, he is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. Even if the Court comes to a conclusion that the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is not made out, the provisions under Section 511, I.P.C. can be invoked for attempting to commit the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. He further submitted that if an alliance for marriage is fixed, the arrangements are made, the music party is brought, the invitations are extended to the relations, the marriage feast is arranged, clothes are purchased, Thali was also kept at the puja, the purohit was engaged, the marriage was performed by tying Thali, then the provisions of Section 494 I.P.C. are attracted. But if one of the essential ceremonies of the marriage is not performed or not proved, the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is not made out. In such a case, as there is an unsuccessful attempt made by the accused and as the marriage was performed for all practical purposes by tying Thali, though the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is not attracted, the offence under Section 494 read with 511 I.P.C. is attracted, therefore, the accused must be punished at least for the offence under Section 494 read with 511 I.P.C. 18. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, let us examine Section 511 I.P.C. Section 511 I.P.C. reads as follows: “511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with transportation of imprisonment.— Whoever, attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with transportation or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, an in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with transportation or imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to one half on the longest term provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.” 19. An attempt to commit on offence is discussed in detail in a decision reported in State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. An attempt to commit on offence is discussed in detail in a decision reported in State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub, (1980) 3 SCC 57 : AIR 1980 SC 1111 where in the Supreme Court held that: “What constitutes an “attempt” is a mixed question of law and fact, depending largely on the circumstances of the particular case. “Attempt” defines a precise and exact definition. Broadly speaking all crimes which consist of the commission of affirmative acts are preceded by some covert or overt conduct which may be divided into three stages. The first stage exists when the culprit first entertains the idea or intention to commit an offence. In the second stage, he makes preparations to commit it. The third stage, is reached when the culprit takes deliberate overt steps to commit the offence. Such overt act or step in order to be ‘criminal’ need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of the offense. It is sufficient if such act acts were deliberately done, and manifest a clear intention to commit the offense aimed being reasonably proximate to the consummation of the offense.” 20. The Supreme Court also observed as follows:— “In order to constitute ‘an attempt’, first there must be an intention to commit a particular offence second, some, act must have been done which would necessarily have to be done towards the commission of the offence, and third, such act must be ‘proximate’ to the intended result. The measure of proximity is not in relation to time and action but in relation to intention. In other words, the act must reveal, with reasonable certainty, in conjunction with other facts and circumstances and not necessarily in isolation, an intention, as distinguished from a mere desire or object, to commit the particular offence, though the act by itself may be merely suggestive or indicative of such intention, but, that it must be indicative or suggestive of the intention.” 21. In the Digest of Criminal Law, it was mentioned as to what constitute an attempt, which reads as follows: “An attempt to commit a crime is an act done with intent to commit that crime and forming part of a series of acts, which would constitute its actual commission if it were not interrupted. The point at which such a series of acts begins cannot be defined; but depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. 22. The point at which such a series of acts begins cannot be defined; but depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. 22. The Supreme Court further held as follows: “25. Editing the 12th Edition of Russell on Crime and 18th Edition of Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law, Professor Turner explained his modified definition as follows:— “It is therefore suggested that practical test for the actus reus in attempt is that the prosecution must prove that the steps taken by the accused must have reached the point when they themselves clearly indicate what was the end towards which they were directed. In other words the steps taken must themselves be sufficient to show, prima facie, the offender's intention to commit the crime which he is charged with attempting. That there may be abundant other evidence to establish his mens rea (such as a confession) is irrelevant to the question of whether he had done enough to constitute the actus reus.” 26. In Haughten v. Smith, 1975 AC 476 at p. 492. Hailsham L.C. quoted Parke B. from the Eagleton case and Lord Parker, C.J., from Devery v. Lee and proceeded to mention three propositions as emerging from the two definitions. “(1) There is a distinction between the intention to commit a crime and an attempt to commit it….(2) in addition to the intention, or means rea, there must be an overt act of such a kind that it is intended to form and does form part of a series of acts which would constitute the actual commission of the offence if it were not interrupted…… (3) The act relied on as constituting the attempt must not be an act merely preparatory to commit the completed offence, but must bear a relationship to the completion of the offence referred to in Reg v. Eagleton, as being ‘proximate’ to the completion of the offence is Devey v. Lee, (1968) 1 QB 366, 370 as being immediately and not merely remotely connected” with the completed offence……….” 27. In Director of Public Prosecutions v. Stonehouse, (1977) 2 All ER 909, Lord Diplok and Viscount Dilhorne, appeared to accept the ‘proximity’ test of Parke B, While Lord Edmund-Davis accepted the statement of Lord Hailsham as to what were the true ingredients of a criminal attempt. Whatever test was applied, it was held that the facts clearly disclosed an attempt in that case. 28. Whatever test was applied, it was held that the facts clearly disclosed an attempt in that case. 28. In Indian, while attempts to commit certain specified offences have themselves been made specific offences (e.g. 307, 308 Penal Code, 1860 etc.), an attempt to commit an offences punishable under the Penal Code, generally is dealt with order under Section 511 Penal Code, 1860. But the expression ‘attempt’ has not been defined anywhere. 29. In Abhayanand Mishra v. The state of Bihar, (1962) 2 SCR 241 at p. 253. Raghubar Dayal and Subba Rao, JJ., disapproved of the test of ‘last act which if uninterrupted and successful would constitute a criminal offence’ and summarised their views as follows: “A person commits the offences of attempt to commit a particular offence when (i) he intends to commit that particular offence; and (ii) he, having made preparation and with the intention to commit the offence does, an act towards its commission; such an act need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of the offence but must be an act during the course of committing that offence”. 23. In Laxmi Devi v. Satya Narayana, (1994) 5 SCC 545 the Supreme Court while considering Section 494 I.P.C. held that the absence of saptapadi and datta Home as required under Hindu law and caste custom, the factum of second marriage is not made out. 24. In Abhayanand v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698 the Supreme Court observed as follows:— “The question whether a certain act amounts to an attempt to commit a particular offence is a question of fact dependent on the nature of the offence and the steps necessary to take in order to commit it. No exhaustive precise definition of what would amount to an attempt to commit an offence is possible. There is a thin line between the preparation for and an attempt to commit an offence. Undoubtedly, a culprit first intends to commit the offence, then makes preparation for committing it and thereafter attempts to commit the offence. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence; if it fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence. Undoubtedly, a culprit first intends to commit the offence, then makes preparation for committing it and thereafter attempts to commit the offence. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence; if it fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence. Attempt to commit an offence, therefore, can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is a step towards the commission of the offence. The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence.” 25. In Queen v. Peterson, 1876 (1) Allahabad Series 316 Mr. Justice Pearson presiding over a Bench of High Court of Allahabad considered Section 494 and 511 I.P.C. and held that where a man having a wife caused the banns of marriage between himself and a woman to be published, he could not be punished for an attempt to marry again during the lifetime of his wife as the act of causing the publication of banns of marriage is an act done in the preparation to marry but does not amount to an attempt to marry. In the case covered by the above decision, one person by name Peter Peterson, a European, was charged for the offence under Sections 494 and 511 I.P.C. for attempting to marry Ethel Amanda Guise by causing the publication of the banns of marriage between them, when the being a Christian, had a wife alive, and that had thereby committed an offence under Sections 494 and 511 I.P.C. The Sessions Judge, Agra, convicted him with that charge and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. Peterson appealled to the High Court. The High Court, while considering the question whether the publication of banns of marriage is an attempt to marry, held as follows:— “An attempt to commit a crime is to be distinguished from an intention to commit it and from preparation made for its commission. “Preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence; the attempt is the direct movement towards the commission after the preparations have been made” Mayne's Commentaries on Sec. 511, Penal Code, 1860. In one of the cases cited by Mr. “Preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence; the attempt is the direct movement towards the commission after the preparations have been made” Mayne's Commentaries on Sec. 511, Penal Code, 1860. In one of the cases cited by Mr. Mayne in his Commentaries on the Penal Code, 1860 in illustration of the above doctrine, it was ruled that there could be no attempt to contract a marriage until the parties stood before the Magistrate about to begin the ceremony. It would follow in the present case that the publication of the banns was not an attempt on the prisoner's part to marry Miss Guise, but only a preparation for such an attempt. The publication of banns may or may not be, in cases in which a special license if not obtained, a condition essential to the validity of a marriage, but common sense forbids us to regard either the publication of the banns or the procuring of the license as a part of the marriage ceremony. If the rule laid down in America, that an attempt can only be manifested by acts which would end in the consummation of the offence but for the intervention of circumstances independent of the will of the party, be accepted, it is clear that the prisoner's act in causing the banns of marriage between himself and Miss Guise to be published was not, in the eye of the law, an attempt to marry her, inasmuch as he might, before any ceremony of marriage was commenced, have willed not to carry out his criminal intention of marrying her. For the reasons above stated the verdict of the jury by which the prisoner is convicted of an offence punishable under Ss. 511, 494, Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence passed on him under those sections by the Sessions Court must be and hereby are annulled.” 26. From the above legal principles and pronouncements, it is clear that if an attempt to marry again during the subsistence of the first marriage is made, the accused is punishable for the offence under Section 494 read with 511 I.P.C. Section 494 I.P.C. reads as follows: “494. From the above legal principles and pronouncements, it is clear that if an attempt to marry again during the subsistence of the first marriage is made, the accused is punishable for the offence under Section 494 read with 511 I.P.C. Section 494 I.P.C. reads as follows: “494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife:— Whoever having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life punished with imprisonment of either description for 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 has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife at the time of the subsequent marriage shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that 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.” 27. The prosecution failed to prove that the second marriage was performed according to Hindu law and caste custom. Though there is failure of performing one or two essential ceremonies, still the accused can be punished for the offence under Section 494 read with 511 I.P.C. for attempting to get the second marriage. The intention to marry for the second time the during the subsistence of the first marriage is not sufficient and it does not amount to an offence. There must be an intentional act which a person does towards the commission of an offence, but if fails in its object through circumstances of the volition of that person amounts to an attempt, therefore, the intention is not sufficient to attract the offence. The next stage of the commission of offence is the preparation. While examining the question whether the act amounts to attempt, merely a preparation is must in some cases depending upon the surrounding circumstances which must be taken into consideration. The next stage of the commission of offence is the preparation. While examining the question whether the act amounts to attempt, merely a preparation is must in some cases depending upon the surrounding circumstances which must be taken into consideration. For instance, if the accused in order to commit the offence, distributes the wedding cards, purchases new clothes, engages purohit and music party and book the persons for arranging feast, this is only a preparation to commit the offence and it does not amount to attempt to commit the offence. He may change his mind to commit the offence or some other factors may intervene preventing him from committing the offence, therefore, mere preparation to commit the offence is also not an attempt to commit the offence, therefore, there must be an unsuccessful attempt to commit the offence. For instance, if the bride, bridegroom, relations, purohit and the music party gathered at the pendal at the scheduled time and after gathering, if they performed the ceremony of the marriage and if the bridegroom ties Thail to the bride to complete the essential ceremonies of marriage, it is a clear intention on the part of the accused to commit the offence. But when the prosecution failed to prove one or two essential ceremonies after completion of the marriage ceremony, it may not be a marriage as contemplated under Section 494 I.P.C., but if definitely amounts to an attempt to commit bigomy attracting the punishment under Section 494 read with 511 I.P.C. After completing the ceremony, the accused cannot say that they never intended to marry again. The process of indicating and completing the marriage ceremonies is an indication that the accused attempted to commit the offence of bigomy. 28. In the case on hand, the complainant failed to prove that the bridegroom tied Thail to the bride in addition to the other ceremonies as required under law, therefore, the accused cannot be punished for the attempt to commit the offence of bigomy under Section 494 read with 511 I.P.C. Though it is made clear that a man or woman, who is having a husband or wife living, marries again during the subsistence of the first marriage and in that process of undergoing ceremonies, if the Court finds that one or two essential ceremonies are not performed, the marriage is not proved. On proving the remaining ceremonies, it can be said that the man or woman have committed the offence of attempting to marry for the second time during the subsistence of the first marriage, which is punishable under Section 494 read with 511 I.P.C. 29. But, in the present case, as the complainant failed to prove the tying of Thali in addition to other ceremonies, she also failed to prove the attempt to marriage also, therefore, the accused cannot be punished for the attempt to commit bigomy and the Appeal must fail. Crl. R. No. 49 of 2002 30. This Revision Case if filed by the accused in C.C. No. 169 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, At the instance of the defacto complainant by name Leila Padmaja, Crime No. 114 of 1992 was registered by the Macherla Police for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against three accused and the police after thorough investigation laid the charge sheet against the three accused for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 31. After securing the appearance of the accused, they were examined under Section 239 of I.P.C. and a charge for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. was framed. The accused denied the charge and claimed for trial. 32. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. P-1 and P-2 No oral or documentary evidence was adduced in defence side. 33. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence placed by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, each, through the Judgment dt. 05-10-1999. The accused, being aggrieved by the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 542 of 1999 before the IV Additional Sessions Court, Guntur and the Sessions Court, after considering the evidence available on record and after hearing both parties, confirmed the Judgment of the lower Court and dismissed the Appeal through its judgment dated 21-1-2002. The accused, being aggrieved by the confirmation of the conviction and sentences imposed by the appellant Court, preferred the Revision Case challenging their validity and legality. 34. The accused, being aggrieved by the confirmation of the conviction and sentences imposed by the appellant Court, preferred the Revision Case challenging their validity and legality. 34. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentences imposed by the lower Court are liable to be set aside or modified? 35. The case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the revision petitioners is briefly, as follows:— A-1 is the husband of the defacto complainant, who was examined as P.W. 1. Their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and caste custom on 26-05-1991. A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-1. At the time of marriage. P.W. 2 the father of P.W. 1, paid Rs. 40,000/- in cash and 10 sovereigns of gold to the accused for the benefit of P.W. 1. The maternal grand mother of P.W. 1 agreed to give 2 acres of land to P.W. 1, therefore, the accused demanded P.Ws. 1 and 2 to sell away the land and pay the sale consideration. P.W. 2 agreed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- being the market value of the land @ Rs. 50,000/- Per acre. Since there was no offer from anybody to purchase the land, they could not sell the same, therefore, P.W. 2 could not pay the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the accused. Immediately after the marriage, P.W.-1 joined A-1 and they remained at Uppalapadu village for five days. Later A-1 took P.W. 1 to Macherla and put up the family in a rented house. One month thereafter, A-1 vacated the house and took another house near E.S.I. Hospital, Macherla. A-1 developed illicit intimacy with one Tatineni Radha, who was living nearer to their house and used to go to her house everday and return home during odd hours. When P.W. 1 questioned his conduct, A-1 proclaimed that if he marries the said Radha, he would get more dowry. A-2 and A-3 used to visit the house of P.W. 1 once in a week and during their stay for two or three days, they used to assault P.W. 1 and insist her to bring more dowry from her parents. Two months after the marriage in the month of July. A-2 and A-3 used to visit the house of P.W. 1 once in a week and during their stay for two or three days, they used to assault P.W. 1 and insist her to bring more dowry from her parents. Two months after the marriage in the month of July. Ashadamasam intervened, therefore, the mother of P.W. 1 took her to their house and after Ashadamasam, the accused did not come to their house to take P.W. 1. P.W. 1 informed her parents about the conduct of A-1 and ill treatment meted out to her in the hands of all the accused. The parents of P.W. 1 brought her to the house of the accused and left her. The accused intensified their harassment by demanding P.W. 1 to bring additional dowry and A-1 neglected P.W. 1 in all respects. While so, on 05-10-2001, the accused drove away P.W. 1 from their house stating that unless she brings a colour T.V., a Refrigerator, a scooter and cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- they will not allow her to live in their house. Subsequently, A-1 issued a legal notice to P.W. 1 seeking divorce. When there was mediation, A-1 attempted to beat the mother of P.W. 1 during that mediation. Subsequently, the mother of P.W. 1 took her to the house of A-2 and A-3 at Uppalapadu and paid cash of Rs. 15,000/- promising to pay the balance amount at a later stage. Till 05-11-1992, P.W. 1 stayed with A-2 and A-3 and during that period A-2 and A-3 caused harassment to her. P.W. 1 on apprehending danger to her life in the hands of the accused, reached her parents house. On 19-12-1992, A-1 came to the house of P.W. 2 in a drunken state and demanded P.W. 1 to give divorce, therefore, P.W. 1 presented Ex. P.-1 complaint to the Station House Officer, Macherla Police Station, which culminated into this case. 36. P.W. 1, the complainant deposed that on 26-05-1991, her marriage took place with A-1 as per caste custom and religious rites, At the time of marriage, her parents paid Rs. 40,000/- towards dowry to A-1 besides gold and other ornaments and also paid Rs. 3,000/- towards clothes. Immediately after marriage she joined her husband to lead martial life at Macherla. Her parents undertook to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- cash to the accused subsequently. 40,000/- towards dowry to A-1 besides gold and other ornaments and also paid Rs. 3,000/- towards clothes. Immediately after marriage she joined her husband to lead martial life at Macherla. Her parents undertook to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- cash to the accused subsequently. Within one month from the date of marriage, A-1 started demanding money and insisting on her to get the money from her parents. After one month, they shifted the residence to another house situated near E.S.I. Hospital. After shifting of the house, A-1 used to come in the late hours in drunken state and used to illiterate her for the purpose of money. A-1 used to spend most of his time with one Tatineni Radha, whose house is situated behind their house. A-1 used to inform her that if he marries that woman, he would get more dowry. A-1 and A-3 used to visit their house every week and used to abuse and assault her and insist to bring the money. Her parents took her to their house for Ashadamasam. She informed about the harassment and ill-treatment meted by her by the accused. After Ashadamasam, A-T failed to take her back. Her parents approached A-1 and requested him to take back her promising to fulfill the earlier promise. As he agreed for the said arrangements, her parents dropped her in the house of the accused. The accused again started harassing her to get the money. A-1 took away her gold ornaments and spent the money for gambling. He failed to maintain and neglected her. A-1 got illicit intimacy with Tatineni Radha. On 05-10-1991. the accused necked her out of the house saying that unless she gets Colour T.V., Fridge and cash, they are not going to allow her to their house. Having no other way, she reached her parents house and informed the same. The request of the parents also refused by the accused to take her back. The accused did not change his attitude despite mediations through elders. A-1 assaulted her mother with belt when she questioned about his conduct. On 26-11-1992, she was taken by her mother to Uppalapadu and paid Rs. 15,000 to A-2 and A-3 promising to pay the balance amount later and dropped her. She stayed there upto 05-12-1992. The accused did not change his attitude despite mediations through elders. A-1 assaulted her mother with belt when she questioned about his conduct. On 26-11-1992, she was taken by her mother to Uppalapadu and paid Rs. 15,000 to A-2 and A-3 promising to pay the balance amount later and dropped her. She stayed there upto 05-12-1992. During that period also, A-2 and A-3 harassed and ill-treated her, On 05-12-1992, A-1 came to his house and all the accused assaulted and necked her out. She came to Macherla to her parents' house. On 19-12-1992. A-1 came to her parents' house along with two other persons and demanded for divorce with her. Having no other alternative. She gave Ex. A-1 complaint to the police. 37. In the cross-examination, She stated that after the marriage, she Spent five days at Uppalapadu along with A-1 and thereafter she stayed at Macherla. A-1 and A-3 are living at Uppalapadu. At the time of the talks, her parents agreed to provide two acres of land and 40,000/- cash, 10 sovereigns of gold top A-1 and paid the same. The gold ornaments are in her possession. There was no document executed with regard to the transfer of two acres of land either in her favour or in favour of A-1 After her joining the husband, her parents did not visit the house of A-1 but she used to visit her parents' house once in a week. A-1 is not amicable with her during the period of three months and there were quarrels in between A-1 and herself. During that period, though she visited her parents' house, she did not reveal about the quarrels to them. After the marriage, she came to know that A-1 having illicit intimacy with Radha. She denied a suggestion that the accused never demanded any dowry from them and she gave a false complaint against the accused being accustomed to the city life. 38. P.W. 2 the father of P.W. 1 deposed that on 26-05-1991, he performed the marriage of his daughter with A-1. He gave Rs. 40,000/- towards dowry in addition to 10 sovereigns of gold and Rs. 2,000/- towards clothes. He sent his daughter to the house of A-1 for marital life. For about one month P.W. 1 and A-1 lived happily. P.W. 2 the father of P.W. 1 deposed that on 26-05-1991, he performed the marriage of his daughter with A-1. He gave Rs. 40,000/- towards dowry in addition to 10 sovereigns of gold and Rs. 2,000/- towards clothes. He sent his daughter to the house of A-1 for marital life. For about one month P.W. 1 and A-1 lived happily. Later P.W. 1 informed him that the accused causing harassment to her for the purpose of getting Colour T.V. Fridge etc., all worth Rs. 1,00,000/- He used to inform P.W. 1 that he would talk to the accused and settle the same. He could not meet to the demand of the accused as he could not dispose of the property for want of fair price. The accused also used to insist on him to give the money and used to harass P.W. 1. On 05-10-1991, the accused sent away P.W. 1 from their house. P.W. 1 came to his house. Later, he deputed three person to the accused to settle the matter, but in vain. A-1 got issued a registered notice to him. As they are not going to take back P.W. 1, a panchayat was held at the house of P.W. 3. At the time of Panchayat, A-1 abused him in filthy language and tried to assault. Ultimately, it was agreed before the elders that he has to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the accused and the accused has to take back P.W. 1, On 26-11-1992, his wife took P.W. 1 to the house of the accused and paid Rs. 15,000/- to A-2 and informed that the remaining amount will be paid within short time. On 05-12-1992. A-1 necked P.W.-1 out of his house in consultation with his parents. On 19-12-1992, the henchmen of A-2 came in a drunken state and threatened them. 39. In the cross-examination, he stated that no property stands in the name of his wife or himself. He gave the amount of Rs. 40,000/- and 10 sovereigns of gold to A-1 as Stridhana property. He never agreed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry payable on the date of marriage. For some time, P.W. 1 and A-1 lived happily and later disputes arose between them. A-2 and A-3 used to come to their house and stay for one or two days and later returned to Uppalapadu. He never agreed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry payable on the date of marriage. For some time, P.W. 1 and A-1 lived happily and later disputes arose between them. A-2 and A-3 used to come to their house and stay for one or two days and later returned to Uppalapadu. He sent mediators to the house of A-1, when he was staying at Macherla. The mediators never instructed him to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- and P.W. 1 was necked out. 40. P.W. 3 a resident of Macherla Village deposed that he knows the family of P.W. 1 The marriage of P.W. 1 was performed with A-1, P.W. 2 gave an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards marriage expenditure apart from gold ornaments weighing about 10 sovereigns. Soon after the marriage, P.W. 1 joined her husband A-1 and began to reside with him in a separate house in Macherla. P.W. 2 promised to the accused that he would give two acres of land and the accused asked him to sell the land and give Rs. 1,00,00/- P.W. 2 undertook to give the lease amount on the said land to the accused. A-1 demanded P.W. 1 to get the Colour T.V. Refrigerator etc. from her parents house. As P.W. 2 failed to give the required articles, A-1 used to harass P.W. 1 A-2 and A-3 used to instigate P.W. 1 to get the articles. Ultimately A-1 to A-3 necked out P.W. 1 from their house. As there was no other way, P.W. 1 reached her parents' house at Macherla. He called A-1 and advised him to lead happy marital life. A-1 paid dear ear for the advise given by him,. During the Course of mediation, A-1 to A-3 picket up quarrels with P.W. 2 and his wife and tried to beat them. A-1 to A-3 also abused P.W. 2 and his wife. The mediations are failed and P.W. 2 and his wife and the accused left the place to their houses. A-1 got issued a notice to P.Ws. 1 and 2 through advocate. A-1 married again during the subsistence of the first marriage with P.W. 1. 41. In the cross-examination, he stated that at the time of mediation, he requested the accused to receive the lease amount over the land since there is no value for the land at that juncture. A-1 got issued a notice to P.Ws. 1 and 2 through advocate. A-1 married again during the subsistence of the first marriage with P.W. 1. 41. In the cross-examination, he stated that at the time of mediation, he requested the accused to receive the lease amount over the land since there is no value for the land at that juncture. He denied a suggestion that as he is close relation to P.W. 2 he is speaking falsehood. 42. P.W. 4 the Sub-Inspector of Police deposed about the receiving of the complaint, registering the case,. conducting the investigation and filling charge sheet etc. 43. By taking into consideration the above evidence, the accused were found guilty by the trial Court and imposed sentences accordingly. 44. The trial Court, after considering the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution and as no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, found A-1 to A-3 guilty for the offence under Section 498 of I.P.C. by observing that A-1 harassed the deceased for bringing additional dowry and A-2 and A-3 instigated him, The appellate Court confirmed the Judgment of the trial Court including the conviction and sentences against the all the accused. 45. The appellate Court observed that the disputes between P.W. 1 A-1 are internal affairs. Villagers are not expected to observe those quarrels. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 clearly establishes that there is demand of additional dowry and when P.W. 2 failed to pay the same, they harassed P.W. 1 and necked her out. Though A-1 stated that he issued a notice to P.W. 1 he did not produce the same at any time of the trial to show his bona fides that he did not harass P.W. 1. The mediations also failed. P.W. 3 also stated about the mediations and demands made by A-1. In view of the totality of the circumstances, I find no grounds to interfere with the order of the lower Court. The orders of both the Courts finding the accused guilty of the offences, convicting and sentencing them for imprisonment and fine are therefore, confirmed. 46. In the result Crl. A. No. 1901 of 1999 dismissed and Crl. R.C. No. 49 of 2002 is also dismissed.