To secure a conviction under Section 494 IPC, the prosecution must prove the existence of a valid marriage and the performance of a second marriage with essential ceremonies; mere allegations and contradictions are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The present criminal appeal has been instituted by the appellant–complainant, Smt. Vinod Kumari, assailing the judgment rendered by the learned appellate Court i.e. Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Hanumangarh in on 28.03.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.13/2017, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . By the impugned judgment, the appellate Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence earlier imposed by the learned trial Court i.e. learned ACJM, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 27.01.2017 passed in Criminal Original Case No.31/2001 wherein Respondent No.2, Prem Kumar, and Respondent No.7 Kamla were convicted for the offence of bigamy and sentenced to undergo two years SI alongwith fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default to further undergo three months SI; while Respondents No.3 to 6 were found guilty of abetment and were accordingly sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs. 15,000 each and in default to undergo one month’s SI. Out of the total compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-, a sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be directed to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the material available on record.

2.1. The factual matrix of the present case originates from the marital alliance between the appellant and Respondent No.2, which was solemnized nearly fifteen years prior to the initiation of the complaint. The couple cohabited for a substantial period of time; however, according to the appellant, she was subsequently expelled from her matrimonial home nearly six years before the institution of these proceedings. In the intervening period, she was constrained to seek legal remedies by instituting criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , as well as maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.2. The fulcrum of the present prosecution, however, rests upon the accusation that during the continuance of this valid and subsisting marriage, Respondent No.2 purportedly entered into another matrimonial alliance with Respondent No.7. It is further alleged that Respondents No.3 to 6, despite their knowledge of the existing marital tie, not only acquiesced in but also facilitated and participated in the solemnization of the said second marriage.

2.3. Upon the lodging of the complaint, the learned Magistrate embarked upon the procedure mandated under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, conducting a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the veracity of the allegations. Having found sufficient grounds to proceed, process was accordingly issued against the accused persons. The matter was thereafter posted for trial, wherein the prosecution adduced the testimony of four witnesses in support of its case. Following the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC to afford them an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them.

2.4. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court arrived at the finding that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt. On such determination, Respondent No 2 and Respondent No.7 were held guilty of the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC , while Respondents No.3 to 6 were convicted for abetment of the said offence under Section 494 r.w. 109 IPC . The learned Trial Court accordingly imposed sentences commensurate with the gravity of the offences as proved.

2.5. The prosecution sought to fortify its case by contending that advance information regarding the purported second marriage of Respondent No.2 with Respondent No.7 had been conveyed to the complainant party by Jagdish and Shankarlal. Significantly, however, neither of these two alleged informants were produc