Proof of solemnisation of second marriage is not a must.

The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the accused 1 to 8 before the lower Court. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Complainant against the order of acquittal of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chengalpattu passed on 14-4-1988 in C.C. No. 391 of 1986

2. The Appellant/Complainant filed a complaint before the lower Court stating as follows :-

The Appellant/Complainant is the legally wedded wife of the 1st Respondent/1st Accused. The marriage between them was solemnised on 9-9-1984 at Kattuppakkam Village within the limits of Uthiramerur police station in Chengalpattu District. The Appellant/Complainant and the 1st Respondent/1st Accused were living happily at Kattuppakkam Village for about a year. The 2nd accused is the daughter of the 3rd accused and the 4th accused. The 5th accused is the brother of the 2nd accused. The 8th accused is the relative of the accused 1 and 2 and they are residents of Kattuppakkam Village. The 6th and 7th accused are the relatives of the 3rd accused. The 1st respondent/1st Accused began to illtreat the Appellant/Complainant a year after the marriage that took place on 9-9-1984. The 1st accused was neglecting and avoiding the company of the Appellant/Complainant. The efforts of the Appellant/Complainant for mediation also failed. The Appellant/Complainant learnt from the witnesses viz., Rajagopal, Poongavanam and Nataraja Gounder that the 1st accused married the 2nd accused on 22-9-1985 at Sakthi koil in Athur near Thozhupedu. The 1st accused and the 2nd accused exchanged the garlands and then the 1st accused tied the 'Thali' around the neck of the 2nd accused in the presence of deity of Sakthi koil. The accused 3 to 8 actually assisted the solemnisation of their marriage and the connected functions at the time of their marriage. The 1st accused did not return to the village after his second marriage. All the accused had the knowledge that the first marriage of the Appellant/Complainant with the 1st accused is still subsisting. The Appellant/Complainant learnt that the aforesaid second marriage was later registered at the Sub-Registrar Office at Acharapakkam on 23-12-1985. The parents of the complainant obtained an extract from the Sub-Registrar's Office at Acharapakkam regarding the registration of the second marriage between the 1st and the 2nd accused. On 29-5-1986, the 1st accused and the 2nd accused along with the accused 3 to 5 came to live in the house of the 1st accused. When the appellant/complainant questioned the same, the 1st accused came to assault her. The relatives of the complainant tried for settlement and it was of no avail. Thus the 1st accused and the 2nd accused have committed an offence of bigamy under Section 494 of IPC and the accused 3 to 8 have committed the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of IPC

3. Copies of the complaint were furnished to all the accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chengalpattu framed the charge under Section 494 of I.P.C. as against the accused 1 and 2 and the charge under Section 494 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. against the accused 3 to 8. When questioned in respect of the charges framed against them, the Respondent/Accused denied the same and claimed to be tried. In proof of the charges framed against the accused, the complainant examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and filed the documents marked as Exs.P1 and P2

4. When questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence on the side of the complainant, the Respondents/Accused denied their complicity in the crime. However the 1st Respondent/1st Accused would state in Tamil as follows :-

So also the 2nd Respondent/2nd Accused would state in the proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in Tamil in the following words :-

Thus both the accused 1 and 2 would state that even though there was no marriage, they registered their marriage in the Office of the Sub-Registrar in view