JUDGMENT

K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. — Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 1999 reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. The learned Single Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 494, IPC.

3. The appellant S. Nagalingam married respondent complainant Sivagami on 6-9-1970. Three children were born from that wedlock. The respondent alleged that the appellant started ill-treating her and on many occasions she was physically tortured. As a result of ill-treatment and severe torture inflicted by the appellant as well as his mother, she left her marital home and started staying with her parents. While so, the respondent came to know that the appellant had entered into a marriage with another woman on 18-6-1984, by the name of Kasturi, and that the marriage was performed in a marriage hall at Thiruthani. The respondent then filed a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate against the appellant and six others. All the accused were acquitted by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1992 before the High Court of Madras. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 1-11-1996 upheld the acquittal of accused 2-7, but as regards the acquittal of the appellant, the matter was remitted to the trial Court permitting the complainant to adduce evidence regarding the manner in which the marriage was solemnized. Upon remand, the priest (PW 3), who is alleged to have performed the marriage of the appellant with the second accused, Kasturi, on 18-6-1984, was further examined and the appellant was allowed further cross-examination. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his judgment dated 4-3-1999 acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court of Madras. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant had committed the offence punishable under Section 494, IPC. This is challenged before us.

4. We heard Mr. R. Sundaravardan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. The respondent Sivagami appeared in person and she filed some documents in Court. Though she was offered the assistance of a counsel, she declined to avail herself of that opportunity.

5. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether the second marriage entered into by the appellant with the second accused, Kasturi, on 18-6-1984 was a valid marriage under Hindu law so as to constitute an offence under Section 494, IPC.

6. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 494, IPC are: (i) the accused must have contracted the first marriage; (ii) whilst the first marriage was subsisting, the accused must have contracted a second marriage; and (iii) both the marriages must be valid in the sense that necessary ceremonies governing the parties must have been performed.

7. Admittedly, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent, entered into by them on 6-9-1970, was subsisting at the time of the alleged second marriage. The Metropolitan Magistrate held that an important ceremony, namely, “saptapadi” had not been performed and therefore, the second marriage was not a valid marriage and no offence was committed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge reversing this decision in appeal held that the parties are governed by Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act as the parties are Hindus residing within the State of Tamil Nadu. It was held that there was a valid second marriage and the appellant was guilty of the offence of bigamy.

8. In the complaint filed by the respondent, it was alleged that the appellant had contracted the second marriage and this marriage was solemnised in accordance with Hindu rites on 18-6-1984 at RCC Mandapam, Thiruthani Devasthanam. To support this contention, PWs 2 and 3 were examined. PW 3 gave detai