Prosecution must prove the essential ceremonies of a second marriage to establish bigamy under Section 494 IPC; mere admissions by the accused are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI, J.

1. The present Acquittal Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 29-9-2018 passed by the 1^st Upper Sessions Judge, Baloda-Bajar Distt. Balodabajar-Bhatapara in Cri. A. No. 69/2017 whereby the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the accused acquitting him of offence under Section 494 of the IPC which was preferred against the judgment dated 7-11-2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda-Bajar in Criminal Case No. 1238/2014 whereby the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 494 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 2 months.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that, the appellant/complainant filed complaint against the respondent No. 2/accused and 4 other persons under Section 494 of the IPC stating inter alia that, her marriage was performed with the respondent No. 2/accused in the year 1999 as per the rituals. They have also been blessed with a female child in the year 2002, but after delivery of their child, the accused started harassing her and ousted them from their house in the year 2005. Thereafter, he performed second marriage with one Rukhmani in the year 2010 without any valid decree of divorce. Based on above facts, the appellant/complainant filed complaint, which was registered by the trial Court only against the respondent No. 2.

3. On appearance of respondent No. 2/accused, learned trial Court framed charge under Section 494 of the IPC against him, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the appellant/complainant examined as many as 6 witnesses. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which, he accepted that his marriage was solemnized with the appellant as per rituals and they have also been blessed with a girl child in the year 2002, but he denied all other incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence adduced by the appellant/complainant. The respondent No. 2 has also stated that, he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has examined 3 witnesses in his defence.

5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties, convicted and sentenced the respondent No. 2 in the manner stated in opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved, the accused/respondent No. 2preferred an appeal which was allowed vide impugned order acquitting him. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate Court, the appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the appellant/complainant and her witnesses have proved that, her marriage was solemnized with the accused as per their rituals and they have also been blessed with a female child, which has also been admitted by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that witnesses of complainant have also proved that, in the year 2010, respondent No. 2 has performed second marriage with one Rukhmani and she has also delivered two children of respondent No. 2. Aforesaid fact has also got support from the birth certificate Article ‘A’ of female child Ku. Totruti Kurre, in which names of mother and father are mentioned as Rukhmani Kurre and Pradeep Kurre respectively. Article ‘B’ is certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gaboud wherein he has certified that, Rukhmani Kurre is wife of Pra