The evidence must conclusively prove the validity of a marriage, and going through a recognized form of marriage constitutes an offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

Pollock, A J C—This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of four persons of an offence of bigamy and abetment thereof. In the trial Court it was held that the accused Mt. Soni was the lawfully married wife of Baban and that she had married during the lifetime of Baban, the accused Maruti, abetted by the other two accused Narayan and Kasturchand. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the legality of the marriage between Soni and Baban had not been proved and that the ceremonies performed at the alleged marriage of Soni and Maruti were not sufficient to constitute a valid marriage. He accordingly acquitted all the accused, and against that decision the Local Government has appealed.

2. Baban (P.W. 1) stated that he married Soni 10 years ago, and Narsu and Janu (P.Ws. 2 and 3) stated that they were present at this marriage. None of these witnesses was cross-examined on the point, and Soni and her uncle Narayan, who brought her up and arranged the marriage with Baban, admitted that she was the married wife of Baban. There is also other evidence to show that Baban and Soni lived together as husband and wife and were believed to be legally married. The truthfulness of this evidence has not been challenged and in my opinion it conclusively proves that Soni was the wife of Baban. The cases cited by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are clearly distinguishable on the facts and I have no doubt that the marriage of Baban and Soni has been proved. Under S. 3, Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matter before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. On the evidence in this case any prudent man would act upon the supposition that Soni was the legally married wife of Baban. In 9 Mad 9 Queen-Empress v. Subbarayan, 1896 19 ILR(Mad) 3 considerably less evidence than this was accepted as sufficient proof of a valid marriage.

3. The next question is whether Soni can be said to have ''married'' Maruti. In English law the second marriage must be in a form recognised by the law of the place where it was celebrated, and any form legally recognised there is sufficient. In 45 Cal 641 Tahar Khan v. Emperor,1918 AIR(Cal) 136 it was held that the word ''marry'' in S. 494 means going through a form of marriage, whether the marriage should prove in fact legal and valid or illegal and invalid. This decision was approved by the Lahore High Court in 11 Lah 178 Sant Ram v. Emperor, 1929 AIR(Lah) 713, and no decision disapproving of this view has been cited before me. I am therefore of opinion that the prosecution in this case has merely to show that Soni and Maruti, went through a form of marriage. On that point the evidence is clear. Soni had given notice to her husband that she would consider herself divorced and would remarry unless he took her back with a promise not to ill-treat her and replied to her notice within 15 days. There was a proclamation that the marriage would take place and some sort of ceremony was performed by the accused Kastur-chand who officiated. According to Baliram (P.W. 4), Kasturchand officiated as priest, and performed the 'hom' ceremony and recited mangalastakas' and the bride and the bride groom garlanded each other. Tukaram (P.W. 6) stated much the same, and Ziman (P.W. 8) stated that there was a marriage' ceremony at which Soni married Maruti. Ziman was not cross-examined on the legality of the ceremony; and Baliram in cross-examination stated that the ceremony was that of a marriage and not of gandharva. The learned counsel for the accused relied on the statement made by Tukaram in cross-examination when he said that the ceremony was neither gandharva nor marriage because there was no gram-Joshi as required for the marriage ceremony, but subsequently he stated that the ceremony was a mar