Ranawat, J.—This is a revision petition by Bishna, Birja and Mst. Gattu against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran of the 28th of May, 1953, confirming on appeal the decision of the Extra Magistrate, Baran, of the 26th of February, 1953, convicting Mst. Gattu for the offence under sec. 494 I.P.C. and the other two accused Bishna and Birja under sec. 494 read with sec. 109 I.P.C. and sentencing them to 8 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each or in default 2 months further R. I.

2. This case was instituted on a complaint by Nand Kishore who alleged that he was the husband of Mst. Gattu. His case was that about 18 months before the institution of this case Mst. Gattu went to her fathers house and there she was married to Bishna. Bishna, it was said, know that Mst Gattu was the married wife of the complainant. The defence was that Nand Kishore had divorced Mst. Gattu and her re-marriage was, therefore, valid according to the custom of the community. Marriage of Mst. Gattu with Nand Kishore was not disputed. Evidence was led on behalf of the accused Bishna that a few persons of the community approached Nand Kishore to take away Mst. Gattu from her fathers house but he replied by saying that he had divorced her and that he would not like to bring her. The learned lower court held that the evidence as regards the divorce was not sufficient and that it had not been proved as to what ceremonies were necessary in order to effect a valid divorce. The conviction of the accused was, therefore, upheld.

3. In this petition it has been urged on behalf of the accused persons that no specific evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the marriage of Nand Kishore with Mst. Gattu strictly, and that the evidence of relationship of marriage was not sufficient to support a conviction under sec. 494 I.P.C. for bigamy. Numerous authorities have been cited in support of this contention. The earliest case cited is The Empress vs. Pitambur Singh(l) which is a Full Bench case. In that case the evidence of the husband was that the woman was his wife by marriage and the woman also said that "she was married to Somea, her husband. It was held that under sec. 50 of the Indian Evidence Act such evidence of relationship was not sufficient to support the conviction for bigamy. Strict proof that marriage was performed in a regular way, it was observed, must be adduced in such cases. The Empress vs. Pitamber Singh (1) was followed in later Calcutta cases. Sobrati vs. Jungli (2), Prahlad Barman vs. Emperor (3) and Talep Ali Choudhury vs. Sardar Khan (4). In Sobrati vs. Jungli (2) some evidence was led to prove the ceremonies of a marriage in muslim form but as the husband and wife were both minor and not capable of giving their consent and as no evidence was produced regarding the appointment of their guardians, it was held that the marriage was not proved. The evidence of husband and wife was considered insufficient to prove the marriage. Similarly, in Prahlad Barman vs. Emperor(3) the custom of putting vermilion on the forehead of the wife was held insufficient to prove marriage, as it had not been established as to what ceremonies were necessary in the community of the parties to constitute a valid marriage. In Empress of India vs. Kallu(5) it was held that strict proof of marriage was necessary in cases of bigamy and admission of the accused in no way strengthens the case of prosecution. In Ganga Patra vs.Emperor(6) it was observed that strict proof of the rites of marriage must be given in cases of offences under secs. 493 and 498 I.P.C., so that the court may decide from the evidence before it whether the marriage was valid. The decisions in Phikku vs. Emperor(7), Prem-chand Nira vs. Bai Calal(8), Bhagu Dhondi vs. Emperor(9)and Vir Singh vs. Emperor(lO) lay down the same principles. The case in Queen-Empress vs. Subbarayan(11) takes a lenient view of the evidence. In that case the principles laid down in Empress vs. Pitambur Singh(

Click Here to Read the rest of this document