For conviction on a charge of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, strict proof of solemnization of second marriage in accordance with the personal law of the parties is essential and that mere admission of the accused that he had contracted second marriage is not enough.

J.S. Sekhon, J. (Oral) - Mrs. Parkasho Devi depicting herself as the first wife of Mohan Lal, accused-respondent, filed complaint under Section 494 read with Sections 101/120-B Indian Penal Code against Mohan Lal and others alleging that Mohan Lal, accused-respondent, had contracted a second marriage with other Mst. Parkasho Devi, daughter of Jai Narain in the year 1979. The admission of Mohan Lal, accused-respondent. Ex. PA in a suit for permanent injunction that he had contracted a marriage on 6.6.1976 at Delhi with a girl with whom he had love affair was also pressed into service by the complainant.

2. The trial Court after recording the evidence acquitted the accused-respondent by holding that the complainant had failed to prove that the second marriage was performed by Mohan Lal according to religious ceremonies and personal law of the parties. The admission of the accused Mohan Lal in other proceedings regarding second marriage was held not sufficient to prove the solemnization of the second marriage according to personal law of the parties by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1153.

3. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, the complainant came up before this Court for permission to file an appeal against the order of acquittal. The Division Bench of this Court granted leave qua accused-respondent Mohan Lal only.

4. Mohan Lal, respondent filed an application that Mst. Parkasho Devi had effected a compromise with him and undertaken to withdraw this appeal. Mst. Parkasho Devi has failed to turn up despite specific direction to her Counsel to ensure her presence. Under the circumstances, there is no option but to dispose of the appeal on merit.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

6. The law is well settled on the point that for conviction on a charge of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code strict proof of solemnization of second marriage in accordance with the personal law of the parties is essential and that mere admission of the accused that he had contracted second marriage is not enough. The observations of the Apex Court in Smt. Priya Bala Ghoshs case (supra) relied upon by the trial Court can be referred with advantage. The relevant para reads as under :-

"In Kanwal Ram v. The Himachal Pradesh Admn, 1986 (1) SCR 539, this Court again reiterated the principles laid down in the earlier decision referred to above that in a procecution for bigamy the second marriage has to be proved as a fact and it must also be proved that the necessary ceremonies had been performed. Another proposition laid down by this decision, which answers the second contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that admission of marriage by an accused is no evidence of marriage for the purpose of proving an offered of bigamy or adultery. On the evidence, it was held in the said decision that the witnesses have not proved that the essential ceremonies had been performed."

7. The trial Court had dealt with this matter in paras 13 and 14 of the judgment, which read as under :-

"13. Now coming to the factum of solemnization of the second marriage with Smt. Parkasho Devi who was arrayed as accused No. 4 in the original complaint, the complaint could not substantiate on record that the alleged marriage with accused No. 4 was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies and the solitary evidence on record is Ex. PA, the reply in form of affidavit containing evidence regarding the second marriage and the oral testimony of PWs Mam Chand, the brother of the complainant. Regarding the admission as contained in Ex PA, the learned Counsel for the accused referred before me 1971 SC 1153 (Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Ghosh) to show that the mere admission by the accused that he had contracted second marriage is not sufficient for the proof of solemnization of second mar