1973 Supreme(Del) 209

High Court Of Delhi
SARUP CHAND - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 200 of 1967
Decided On : 09/06/1973

In order to establish the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC, the prosecution must prove that both the first and second marriages were valid marriages and that the first marriage was subsisting on the date of the second marriage. A marriage is said to be valid when it satisfies the conditions laid down in Sections 5 and 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage should have been performed according to the customary rites and ceremonies of the parties. Except in cases where it is proved that the parties are governed by a special custom, it must be proved that the two essential ceremonies, namely, invocation before the sacred fire and saptapadi, that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and bride jointly before the sacred fire, were performed.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 494 IPC - BIGAMY - ESSENTIAL CEREMONIES - PROOF - VALID MARRIAGE - SECTION 5, 7 AND 17 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 415, 417 AND 420 IPC - CHEATING - INGREDIENTS.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Sarup Chand, was convicted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for marrying Raj Kumari Suri while his first wife, Janak Rani, was still alive. The prosecution alleged that Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri had fraudulently produced false affidavits to the Arya Samaj, Delhi, stating that Sarup Chand was unmarried, and thereby induced the Arya Samaj to perform their marriage. The trial court convicted Sarup Chand under Section 494 IPC and sentenced him to four and a half years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. However, the court acquitted both Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri of the charges under Sections 420 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted Raj Kumari Suri of the charge under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the second marriage between Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri was a valid marriage according to law. The court observed that the prosecution had not proved that the essential ceremonies and rites required for a valid Hindu marriage, as prescribed under Sections 5 and 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, were performed at the second marriage. The court also held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the Arya Samaj, Delhi, was deceived by the false representation made by Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri, and that the act of performing the marriage caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the reputation of the Arya Samaj.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved that the second marriage between Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri was a valid marriage according to law? 2. Whether the prosecution had proved that the Arya Samaj, Delhi, was deceived by the false representation made by Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri? 3. Whether the act of performing the marriage caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the reputation of the Arya Samaj?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the second marriage between Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri was a valid marriage according to law. The court observed that the prosecution had not proved that the essential ceremonies and rites required for a valid Hindu marriage, as prescribed under Sections 5 and 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, were performed at the second marriage. The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and another v. The State of Maharashtra and another (AIR 1965 SC 1564), Kanwal Ram and others v. The Himachal Pradesh Administration (AIR 1966 SC 614), and Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh (AIR 1971 SC 1153) to support its conclusion. 2. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the Arya Samaj, Delhi, was deceived by the false representation made by Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri. The court observed that the Arya Samaj had taken precautions to satisfy itself that Sarup Chand was a bachelor at the time of the marriage and that the Arya Samaj was merely the victim of a deception. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and another v. The State of Maharashtra and another (AIR 1965 SC 1564) to support its conclusion. 3. The court held that the act of performing the marriage did not cause or was likely to cause damage or harm to the reputation of the Arya Samaj. The court observed that the Arya Samaj is like any other registrar of marriages who is required to perform a marriage in accordance with law and if he is induced to perform such a marriage as a result of a deception or fraud practised upon him, he is not to be blamed and it cannot be said that his reputation will suffer any injury.

Final Decision: The High Court set aside the conviction of Sarup Chand under Section 494 IPC and the sentence passed against him. The court also upheld the acquittal of Sarup Chand and Raj Kumari Suri for offences under Sections 420 IPC.