Back
MANIPUR HIGH COURT
T. N. R. TIRUMALPAD, J.C.
(Thokchom Ningol Heisnam Ongbi) Bhani Devi w/o H. Baruniton Singh : Petitioner
v.
H. Baruniton Singh and another : Opposite Parties
Criminal Revn. Case No. 8 of 1960
Decided On : 7 -7 -1960
CRIMINAL REVISION - S. 494, I. P. C. - S. 562, CR. P. C. - Bigamy - Applicability of S. 562, Cr. P. C. - Circumstances to be considered - Customary law of divorce in Manipur - Effect of S. 29 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Baruniton Singh, was convicted under S. 494, I. P. C. for bigamy. He married Ibechaobi Devi on 27-7-1956, while his first marriage to Bhani Devi was still subsisting. The Magistrate and the Sessions Judge applied S. 562, Cr. P. C. and released Baruniton Singh on probation of good conduct. The complainant, Bhani Devi, filed a revision petition against the order of the Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge erred in applying S. 562, Cr. P. C. to the case. The Court found that Baruniton Singh had deliberately disobeyed the law by entering into a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting. The Court also found that Baruniton Singh had not expressed any regret for his offence or made any amends for it. Therefore, the Court held that there was no question of any probation of good conduct.
Issues: 1. Whether S. 562, Cr. P. C. was applicable to the case. 2. Whether the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge erred in applying S. 562, Cr. P. C. 3. Whether Baruniton Singh was guilty of bigamy.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 562, Cr. P. C. can be applied only if the Court is satisfied that it is expedient to release the offender on probation of good conduct. 2. The circumstances to be considered in deciding whether to apply S. 562, Cr. P. C. include the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. 3. In the present case, the Court found that Baruniton Singh was not a first offender and that he had deliberately disobeyed the law by entering into a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting. The Court also found that Baruniton Singh had not expressed any regret for his offence or made any amends for it. Therefore, the Court held that S. 562, Cr. P. C. was not applicable to the case.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant, Bhani Devi, and set aside the order of the Sessions Judge. The Court sentenced Baruniton Singh to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 100/-.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Application of Section 562, Cr. P. C.: Section 562 can only be applied if the court is satisfied that it is expedient to release the offender on probation of good conduct. The court emphasized that this provision is not applicable in cases where the offender has not shown remorse or made amends for the offence, especially when the offence involves deliberate disobedience of the law, such as bigamy in this case (!) (!) .
Offence of Bigamy and Validity of Marriage: The court confirmed that the marriage between the accused and Bhani Devi was valid and subsisted at the time of the second marriage, which was in violation of the law. The evidence showed that the prior marriage was not legally dissolved before the second marriage took place, making the second marriage void under the applicable law (!) (!) .
Customary Law and Law of Divorce: The court recognized the customary law of divorce in Manipur, which allows for a simple expression of intent to divorce, and noted that such customary divorces are valid and protected under the law. The failure to formally dissolve the marriage before contracting a second marriage was a deliberate omission, which led to the offence (!) (!) .
Rejection of Defense Claims: The defendant's claims that the previous marriage was invalid due to elopement, custom, or divorce were rejected. The court found the evidence of divorce or invalidity to be false and established that the marriage with Bhani Devi was valid and in force at the time of the second marriage (!) (!) .
Offence and Penalty: The offence of bigamy was proven, and the conviction was upheld. The court noted that the offence was committed deliberately, but also considered the existence of customary law that could have permitted divorce, which was not utilized. The punishment was reduced to imprisonment till the court's rising and a fine, acknowledging that the offence was more of a technical violation under the circumstances (!) (!) .
Sentencing and Discretion: The court held that the application of Section 562, Cr. P. C. was incorrect in this case due to the absence of remorse and the deliberate nature of the offence. The court emphasized that the offence was serious but also recognized the existence of customary laws that could have mitigated the penalty. The sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine was deemed appropriate (!) (!) .
Role of Custom and Law: The court acknowledged the prevalence of customary practices in Manipur and their recognition under the law, including the customary method of divorce. It highlighted that ignorance of law is not an excuse, but also that the law of divorce in Manipur, as per customary law, was a valid and recognized method of dissolution, which should have been utilized by the accused (!) (!) .
Final Decision: The revision petition regarding the application of Section 562 was allowed for the second petitioner (Amubi Devi), who was acquitted, while the conviction of the first petitioner (Baruniton Singh) was confirmed. The sentence was imposed as described, with a recognition that suspension or remission of the sentence would be at the discretion of the appropriate government (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or further clarification on any specific point.
Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1960 is filed by the petitioners against the dismissal by the learned Sessions Judge of Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1958 and the confirmation of the conviction of the petitioners by the Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 101 of 1957 under S. 494, I. P. C. Criminal Revision Case No. 8 of 1960 is filed by the complainant against the order of the Sessions Judge rejecting Criminal Revision No. 32 of 1958 and confirming the order of the Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 10 of 1957 by which he treated the two accused persons who were convicted by him under S. 494, I. P. C. as first offenders and released them on probation of good conduct on execution of bonds for Rs. 500/- each.
2. The complainant Bhani Devi, the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 8 of 1960 married Heisnam Baruniton Singh, the first petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1960 and the first accused in the Criminal Case on 9-6-1952. Baruniton Singh at that time was a student in the Technical Institute at Kharagpur and Bhani Devi was a student in the High School in Tamphasana Girls' High School at Imphal. Her father was Sri Birahari Singh, a S.D.O. in the Manipur Administration.
After the marriage, the couple lived together while both of them were in Imphal. The houses of Baruniton Singh and of the father of Bhani Devi were near each other. It would however appear that the husband and wife were not pulling on well. Sri Birahari Singh, the father of Bhani Devi was helping Baruniton Singh after the marriage to continue his studies at Kharagpur. In June, 1954 he was posted as S.D.O. at Churachandpur.
When Baruniton Singh came to Imphal from Kharagpur during the holidays in June, 1954, he stayed with his wife Bhani Devi for a month in the house of her father at Churachandpur. Subsequently also Shri Birahari Singh continued to help Baruniton Singh with remittances for his education at Kharagpur and affectionate letters were passing between the father-in-law and son-in-law. As late as July, 1955, such letters continued as evidenced by Exts. 5 and 6. Exhibit 7 (1) shows the Money Order for Rs. 200/- sent to Baruniton Singh by Birahari Singh in July, 1955.
We have also the letter Ext. D (1) written by the brother of Birahari Singh to Baruniton Singh in July, 1955 telling him about the welfare of his wife Bhani Devi and stating that she was studying in Kean's College, Shillong. The same letter requested Baruniton Singh to go on with his studies until its completion in the course of the year. In June, 1956, Baruniton Singh completed his studies and became a full-fledged Engineer and returned to Imphal.
On 27-7-1956, he married Ibechaobi Devi, who was the second accused in the Criminal Case and was acquitted by the lower Court. On 20-4-1957, Bhani Devi filed the complaint charging Baruniton Singh with bigamy under S. 494, I. P. C. and the second wife Ibechaobi Devi, her father Kula Singh and Baruniton's brother and mother Gourachand Singh and Amubi Devi with abetment of the said offence.
3. During the pendency of the Criminal Case Baruniton Singh filed an application before my learned predecessor for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the Hindu Marriage Act, which by S. 17 made such a marriage amount to bigamy and punishable under S. 494, I. P. C., was ultra vires of the Indian Constitution as it interfered with the religious beliefs of the Manipuris. That petition was of course dismissed by my learned predecessor and the criminal proceedings continued.
4. The criminal case was fought out very keenly and all the accused denied the offence and various pleas were raised. Baruniton Singh admitted his marriage to Ibechaobi Devi on 27-7-1956, but he sought to prove that his previous marriage to Bhani Devi was an invalid marriage. In order to prove it, he let in evidence to show that Bhani Devi had voluntarily eloped with D.W. 6 - R. K. Maipaksana Singh on 24-1-1951 and spent a night with him. Evidence was let in to show that according to the custom i
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
