The prosecution must prove the essential ceremonies of marriage to establish bigamy under IPC Sections 494 and 495.

ORDER :

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. 

1. The appellant has filed this acquittal appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.06.2018 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Criminal Appeal No.02/2018, whereby, appeal of the respondents No.1 and respondents No.2 (appellants therein) was allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa in Complaint Case No.46/2007, consequently, the respondents/accused were acquitted of the charge under Sections 494 and 494/114 of the Indian Penal Code , respectively.

2. Necessary facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant/complainant is legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and during the subsistence of their marriage, respondent No.1 solemnized second marriage with respondent No.2 on 11.04.2003. After the second marriage, respondent No.1 started residing with respondent No.2 at another place i.e. Shanti Nagar, Banki Mongra. The complainant has made complaint before the concerned police station, however, no action was taken, therefore, a complaint case was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pamgarh on 16.07.2003 against 9 persons, out of which, the complaint was registered against respondents No.1 and 2 (herein) only.

3. During the trial, in order to prove its case, the complainant examined as many as 5 witnesses i.e. Shyamlal (CW-1), complainant herself (CW-2), Bhulau (CW-3), Agamdas (CW-4) and Thanuram (CW-5) and exhibited 5 documents. On the other hand, the respondents/accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. The respondents/accused in their statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC stated that they have been falsely implicated and examined 5 defence witnesses, namely, Jageshwar himself as DW- 1, Itwari (DW-2), Purshottam (DW-3), Maheshram (DW-4) and Chitrakumar (DW-5).

4. After evaluating the evidence on record, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted respondent No.1 for the offence under Section 494 of the IPC and respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 494 /114 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for 1 month. Against the said judgment, the respondents/accused preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge and thereby, respondents No.1 and 2 were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the learned appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective though material evidence is available on record to establish that the complainant is legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and no divorce has taken place. He also submits that the respondent has filed divorce petition before the Family Court, Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit No.148-A/2012 which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 01.07.2014. He also submits that the appellant/complainant has also filed maintenance application on her behalf and her minor daughter under Section 125 of the CrPC which was allowed in Misc. Criminal Case No.15/2006 vide judgment dated 21.12.2006. He also submits that the complainant and their witnesses categorically proved the fact regarding second marriage of respondent No.1 with respondent No.2, therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the respondents. However, without assigning any cogent reasons, the learned appellate Court has reversed the well reasoned finding of the trial Court and acquitted the accused. In v