Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 178 (MP)

Pratap Singh v. State of M. P.

2013-02-11

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT N.K. Gupta, J. The applicant was convicted vide judgment dated 29.7.1985 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in Criminal Case No.337 of 1983 for offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/-. Criminal Appeal No.18/1985 filed by the applicant was also dismissed vide judgment dated 30.11.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. Being aggrieved with both the judgments the applicant has preferred the present revision. 2. Facts of the case in short are that the complainant had lodged a complaint against the applicant and other accused persons that the complainant was married with the applicant 10 years prior to the filing of the complaint. Behaviour of the applicant and his family members was not good with the complainant/respondent no.2. She was ousted from the house of the applicant and therefore, she was residing at her parents house. It was also alleged that three years prior to the filing of the complaint the applicant entered into a second marriage with Geeta Bai, daughter of Bala Prasad, resident of Village Tikholi, Tahsil Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur and therefore, a complaint was filed. 3. The applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take a specific plea but he told before the trial Court that he did not enter into a contract of second marriage. However, no defence evidence was adduced. 4. After considering the prosecution's evidence the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara vide judgment dated 29.7.1985 convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above whereas appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In the present case it is admitted that the marriage of the complainant took place with the applicant 10 years prior to the filing of the complaint and she was not residing with her husband at the time of the alleged second marriage. It is alleged that the applicant got his second marriage performed with one Geeta Bai, daughter of Bala Prasad. However, the complainant Lalbai (PW1) did not allege that she attended the second marriage of the applicant. She had filed a complaint on the basis of information given by the witness Balwan Singh (PW2). Balwan Singh (PW2) and Sobran Singh (PW3) were examined as witnesses who saw the performance of second marriage. However, the complainant Lalbai (PW1) did not allege that she attended the second marriage of the applicant. She had filed a complaint on the basis of information given by the witness Balwan Singh (PW2). Balwan Singh (PW2) and Sobran Singh (PW3) were examined as witnesses who saw the performance of second marriage. Both the aforesaid witnesses have accepted that they were relatives of Lalbai. Balwan Singh has accepted that Ramesh, brother of the complainant Lalbai was his brother-in-law and Sobran Singh has also accepted that he was related to Balwan Singh. Both of the witnesses have accepted that the marriage took place in a secret manner and therefore, few persons from the side of the complainant attended the marriage. Under such circumstances, it was for the witness to show as to how they were invited to attend the marriage. 7. Balwan Singh has stated that he went to the spot due to invitation given by father of second wife Geeta Bai. However, in para 6 he has accepted that he received an invitation when barat had already reached to the house of Bala Prasad. Again in para 11 he has accepted that Bala Prasad did not give any invitation to him but, he called him with the pretext that there was some work to be done by the witness. However, Balwan Singh could not inform about the work which he had done in the ceremony. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that Balwan Singh was not invited in that marriage and he had no reason to attend such a marriage. Similarly, Sobran Singh (PW3) could not say definitely about any invitation. He had stated that one Badri Prasad, who was uncle-in-law of Kanchedi, uncle of the witness had invited him in the marriage. However, he could not show about the relation of Badri Prasad and Bala Prasad so that Badri Prasad was authorized to invite the witness. Balram Singh and Sobran Singh are relatives and it is a strange fact that Sobran Singh has told that no talk took place with Balwan Singh at the spot. 8. Both of the witness have claimed that they told to Balchand Dada, and father of the applicant, as to why they were performing a second marriage of the applicant. Balram Singh and Sobran Singh are relatives and it is a strange fact that Sobran Singh has told that no talk took place with Balwan Singh at the spot. 8. Both of the witness have claimed that they told to Balchand Dada, and father of the applicant, as to why they were performing a second marriage of the applicant. When both the witnesses were invited from the side of the bride then they should have safeguarded the interest of the bride and their natural conduct would be to inform the father of the bride that the applicant was already married. But neither Balram Singh nor Sobran Singh has claimed that they talked to Bala Prasad about such a fact. The conduct of these two witnesses appear to be unnatural. It appears that neither they were invited in the marriage nor they had an opportunity to attend that marriage. 9. The witness Sobran Singh has accepted that he did not tell about the second marriage of the applicant to Lalbai or anyone else related to Lalbai,. It is also an unnatural act of the witness Sobran Singh. Balwan Singh has stated that on the next day he informed about the second marriage of the applicant to Ramesh, brother of the complainant. If the statement of the complainant and pleadings in the complaint are considered then it would be apparent that the complaint was filed after three years of the alleged second marriage. However, Ramesh brother of the complainant was informed on the next day of the second marriage then there should be no problem to the complainant to initiate a complaint soon after the information received. Under such circumstances, it is apparent that neither Balwan Singh nor Sobran Singh attended the alleged second marriage. They are created witnesses being relatives of Ramesh, brother of the complainant Lalbai and therefore, their testimony could not be accepted beyond doubt. Hence the complainant could not prove the factum of second marriage of the applicant. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of “Lingari Obulamma Vs. L. Venkata Reddy and others” AIR 1979 SC 848 and “Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh Vs. Hence the complainant could not prove the factum of second marriage of the applicant. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of “Lingari Obulamma Vs. L. Venkata Reddy and others” AIR 1979 SC 848 and “Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh Vs. Suresh Chandra Ghosh” AIR 1971 SC 1156 in which it is alleged that second marriage should be proved in accordance with the essential religious rites applicable to the parties otherwise no conviction can be directed for offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. In case of Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh (supra) it is mentioned by Hon'ble the Apex Court that admission by the accused that he had contracted second marriage is not enough. 11. In the present case the complainant failed to prove that the second marriage of the applicant was performed with Geeta Bai. The eye witnesses are disbelievable. No fixed date of marriage could be given by the complainant. It appears that when she saw one Geeta Bai residing with the applicant she created a story of second marriage performed within three years of filing of the complaint. Since the witnesses Balram Singh and Sobran Singh could not be believed and fact of second marriage was not proved, both the Courts below have given a perverse judgment and have committed illegality in passing such judgments. 12. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicant can be allowed because perverse judgments passed by both the Courts below cannot be maintained. Consequently, the conviction as well as the sentence directed against the applicant are hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. He would be entitled to receive the fine amount back if he had deposited the same before the trial Court. 13. The applicant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 14. Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below along with their records for information.