A valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act can be established without 'Saptapadi'; credible evidence proving a second marriage during the subsistence of the first valid marriage constitutes bigamy.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal had been filed against the order of acquittal dated 06.01.2016 made in C.A. No. 105 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem reversing the judgment dated 29.06.2015 made in C.C. No. 2 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are given below:

2.1. The marriage between the Appellant and the first Respondent was solemnised on 01.11.1992. In the course of the matrimonial life, the Appellant delivered a female child. After the birth of the female child, the first Respondent and his mother driven the Appellant out of the matrimonial home when their demand for payment of Rs.10,000/- as dowry was not met by her. Subsequently, there was a settlement talk made by elders of both the families and the Appellant was united with first Respondent in the matrimonial home, after paying the amount demanded by the first Respondent. After a year therefrom, once again, the first Respondent driven the Appellant out of the matrimonial home. It is alleged that after driving out the Appellant from the matrimonial home, the first Respondent developed illicit relationship with second Respondent and even married her at Uthamacholapuram Karapuranadhar Swami Temple. It is also alleged that the marriage between Respondents 1 and 2 was solemnised by the Respondents 3 to 7 and they are witnesses to the illegal marriage. The Appellant also alleged that out of such illegal marriage between the Respondents 1 and 2, three children have born and it stands testimony to their illegal relationship when the marriage between the first Respondent and the Appellant was subsisting. Therefore, the Appellant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Respondents 1 to 7 praying to punish them for the alleged offences under Sections 494 read with 109 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2.2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem framed charges against the first Accused for the offence under Section 494 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Charge for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 of INDIAN PENAL CODE as against the Respondents 2 to 7 therein.

2.3. During trial in the private complaint, the Appellant herein examined herself as P.W-1 and one Balasubramaniam, Executive Officer of Karupunathar Temple as P.W-2. She marked 5 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 in support of the private complaint. On the side of the Respondents/Accused, no witness was examined, however, they have marked two documents as Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2.

2.4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence passed the Judgment dated 29.06.2015 by holding that the first Respondent is guilty of offence under Section 494 of IPC and the Respondents 2, 4 and 5 have committed the offence under Section 494 of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC. However, the Respondents 3, 6 and 7 were found not guilty of the offences and therefore they were acquitted of the charges for the offence under Section 494 of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC. As far as the sentence is concerned, the Accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three years.

2.5. Assailing the Judgment dated 29.06