Mere presence at the commission of a crime, even with the awareness that a crime was being committed, is not in itself an intentional aid.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - ABETMENT - SECTION 494, 114 I.P.C. - Mere presence at the commission of a crime, even with the awareness that a crime was being committed, is not in itself an intentional aid. - Mere permission to allow one's premises to be used for the purposes of the marriage does not in itself lead to intentional aid. - Holding the antarpat during the performance of the marriage, with the full knowledge that the marriage was a void marriage, constitutes an act of intentional aid.
Fact of the Case:

The accused were charged with abetment of bigamy under Section 494 read with Section 114 I.P.C. for their participation in a void marriage ceremony. The prosecution alleged that the accused were present at the ceremony, knew that the marriage was void, and threw holy rice on the couple during the performance of the marriage. The accused Nos. 3 and 9 were also alleged to have distributed pan after the ceremony and held the "Antarpat" during the ceremony, respectively.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused were present at the ceremony, knew that the marriage was void, and threw holy rice on the couple during the performance of the marriage. The court also found that accused No. 3 distributed pan after the ceremony and accused No. 9 held the "Antarpat" during the ceremony and permitted the use of his premises for the performance of the marriage.
Issues: 1. Whether the acts of the accused constituted an abetment of the offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 I.P.C.? 2. Whether the accused's presence at the ceremony, with the knowledge that the marriage was void, amounted to intentional aid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Mere presence at the commission of a crime, even with the awareness that a crime was being committed, is not in itself an intentional aid. 2. Mere permission to allow one's premises to be used for the purposes of the marriage does not in itself lead to intentional aid. 3. Holding the antarpat during the performance of the marriage, with the full knowledge that the marriage was a void marriage, constitutes an act of intentional aid.
Final Decision: The court set aside the convictions of the accused Nos. 2 to 8 and 11 to 13 under Section 494 read with Section 114 I.P.C. and acquitted them of the offence. The court discharged the rule so far as accused No. 9 was concerned.

JUDGMENT - (1) This is an application under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code for revising the order, dated the 4th June 1957, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1957, by which he confirmed the conviction of the applicants for the offence under Section 494, read with Section 114 I. P. C., and the sentence on each of them for one days rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one day more.

(2) The prosecution case was that the accused No. 1 had gone through the ceremony of marriage with one Krishnabai during the life-time of his wife Bayadabai. The accused No. 14 was alleged to be the priest who officiated at the performance of the aforesaid marriage. Accused No. 1 was charged under Section 494 I. P. C. and was convicted for the offence under Sec.494. Accused No. 14 as convicted for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 114 I. P. C. I am not concerned with the convictions recorded agaisnt these two persons. They had preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court at Satara from the aforesaid convictions, an their convictions were upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal .Thereafter, they preferred a revision applicationto this Court, and that revision application has been dismissed by this Court. Therefore, the question about the validity or otherwise of the aforesaid convictions does not survive fo consideration. The present applicants were accused Nos. 2 to 9 and 11 to 13 in the trial Court. These accused were also charged with the offence under Section 494 read with Section 114 I. P. C. on the allegation that they had abetted accused No. 1 in the commission of the aforesaid offence under Section 494 I. C. P. The learned Magistrate held that the aforesaid offence was brought home against the aforesaid accused. The accused went in appeal to the Sessions Court at Satara, and , as already stated, the learned Additional Sessions Judges upheld the convictions and sentences passed against these accused persons.

(3) The aforesaid accused Nos. 2 to 9 and 11 to 13 have coem to this Court in revision.

(4) The only point whcih was urged in support of the present revision application was that on the facts found by the learned Appellate judge, the offence of abetment cannot be said tohave been established against all or any of the accused. Therefore, the principal question which arises for determination in the present revision application is whether, on the facts found by the learned appellate Judge, the offence of abetment under Section 494 has been established against all or any one of the accused persons.

(5) The facts which have been found against all the accused persons are as follows:

1. that these accused were present at the time of the celebration of the marriage which was performed at the house of accused No. 9;

2. that all these accused had knowledge of the fact that accused No. 1 was purporting to marry a second wife during the life-time of his first wife;

3. that these accused threw holy rice on the couple during the performance of the marriage.

In addition to this, the facts found against accused Nos. 3 and 9 are as follows: Accused No. 3 distributed pan after the marriage ceremony was over. Accused No. 9 held the "Antarpat" during the performance of the marriage ceremony and he permitted the use of his premises for the perforance of the aforesaid marriage.

(6) The question for consideration is whether the aforesaid acts or any of them constituted an abetment of the offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 I. P. C.

(7) Section 107 defines abetment. It is well known that an act of abetment may take place in one of three ways: (1) Instigation, (2) Conspiracy, or (3) Intentional aid. Having regard to the charge in the present case, there is no doubt whatsoever that the prosecution did not allege that any of the aforesaid accused had instigated the commission of the offence of bigamy. The was conceded by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document