Judgment.- The question that arises for consideration in these two revision cases is whether in a prosecution under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, it is incumbent upon the complainant to establish that both the marriages pleaded or alleged by him or her were performed in accordance with the religious rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Hindu Law governing the parties. The material facts giving rise to the two revision cases lie in a narrow compass and may be briefly stated:

2. A-1 to A-10 in C.C. No. 323 of 1976 on the file of the Second Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Eluru, were prosecuted for offences punishable under section 494 and section 494 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, on a private complaint filed by Kakarala Seetha Devi (P.W. 11). A-3 and A-4 are parents of A-1. A-1 is the husband of P.W. 11. A-2 is the alleged second wife of A-1. A-5 and A-6 are parents of A-2. A-7 and A-8 are sisters of A-1. A-9 is the maternal uncle of A-2 while A-10 is the wife of A-9.

3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W. 11, daughter of P.W. 12, was married to A-1 on 28th May, 1969, that a female child was born to their wedlock on 31st October, 1970, that both of them lived together till 1st November, 1971, when P.W. 11 was sent away to her parents’ house as P.W. 12 could not present a motor-cycle demanded by A-1, that A-1 married A-2 in Pandurangaswamy Temple situate at Eluru, on 18th October, 1975 at 8-30 p.m., that A-3 to A-10 abetted the second marriage, that ever since the marriage, A-1 and A-2 have been living together as husband and wife and that an unsuccessful attempt was made by A-3, the father of A-1, to purchase peace with P.W. 11 and her parents.

4. A-7, A-8 and A-10 were discharged by the learned Magistrate under section 245, Criminal Procedure Code, and a charge under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against A-1 and A-2, while a charge under section 494 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against A-3 to A-6 and A-9. In support of the case of the prosecution as many as fourteen witnesses were examined. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 deposed to the marriage between A-1 and P.W. 11, while P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 deposed to the alleged second marriage of A-1 with A-2. P.Ws. 3, 7 and 10 deposed to the living of A-1 and A-2 together at Peddapadu as husband and wife ever since the date of the alleged marriage between the two. P.Ws. 3, 5 to 8, 11, 12 and 13 deposed to the unsuccessful mediation of the dispute between the two parties. P.W. 14, a purohit by profession deposed to observance of the customary rites and ceremonies at marriages performed against members of ‘kamma’ community to which the parties belong.

5. The plea of the accused was one of denial of the alleged second marriage between A-1 and A-2. A plea of alibi was also put forward by A-1, A-3 and A-4, according to whom they attended the obsequies of the father-in-law of A-7 at Duggirala on 19th October, 1975. During his examination under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, A-1 however admitted having married P.W. 11. Four witnesses were examined by the accused. While D.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 were examined in support of the plea of alibi, D.W. 2, a trustee of Panduranga Swamy Temple situate at Eluru, deposed that no marriage took place in the temple on 19th October, 1975.

6. The claim of P.Ws. 1 and 2, that they attended both the marriages did not find acceptance with the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, however, relying upon the testimony of P.Ws. 3 to 14, and rejecting that of D.Ws. 1 to 4, found that A-1 had married A-2 in Pandurangaswamy Temple on 19th October, 1975 during the subsistence of his marriage with P.W. 11, that A-3 to A-6 abetted the second marriage, that the second marriage was celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form and that except attending the second marriage. A-9 did not take any active part in the second marriage. In the result, A-1 and A-2 were convicted under section 494 of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document