1. Appeal against acquittal for offences including concealment of prior marriage and conspiracy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKURHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA
STATE OF HP – Appellant
Versus
KAMAL KISHORE – Respondent
CR.A/468/2015
Important Points
Convictions under Sections 493, 494, and 495 of the IPC require cogent proof of marriage solemnization and fraudulent concealment of a prior marriage; material contradictions in testimony and failure to legally prove secondary evidence like photographs entitle the accused to acquittal.
Subject
Criminal Law - Marriage Offenses
Act Referred
Indian Penal Code, 1860: S.366, S.376, S.495, S.120B, S.417, S.493, S.494
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.313
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.313
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 493, 494, and 495 - To establish offenses related to fraudulent marriage and bigamy, the prosecution must prove the valid solemnization of the marriage and the intentional concealment of a prior existing marriage. (Paras 29, 53)
(B) Evidence - Material contradictions between a detailed written complaint and subsequent court testimony, particularly regarding the venue and manner of a marriage ceremony, significantly undermine the credibility of the complainant's version. (Paras 41-44)
(C) Evidence - Photographs cannot be treated as conclusive proof of a marriage ceremony unless produced in accordance with the law, which requires the testimony of the person who captured the images or the production of the negatives. (Para 52)
Facts of the case:
The state preferred an appeal against the acquittal of several respondents. The complainant alleged that she was deceived into marrying the first respondent, who was already married, and that other respondents conspired to facilitate this marriage by concealing the first respondent's prior marital status. The prosecution relied on the complainant's testimony, medical reports, and photographs to prove the marriage and subsequent sexual relations.
Findings of Court:
The court found the medical evidence insufficient to prove forceful intercourse. There were glaring discrepancies between the written complaint, which stated the marriage took place in a hotel, and the court testimony, which claimed it occurred in a temple. The court noted that temple bookings were not linked to the accused and that the photographs lacked legal authentication. Furthermore, defense evidence, including an affidavit by the complainant regarding a different marriage, made her testimony unreliable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had provided cogent and reliable evidence to prove the solemnization of the marriage and the fraudulent concealment of the first respondent's previous marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of proof regarding the solemnization of the marriage and given the material contradictions in the witness statements and failures in proving documentary/photographic evidence, the charges under Sections 493, 494, and 495 of the IPC were not established. The benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence favor the acquitted respondents.
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
(B) Evidence - Material contradictions between a detailed written complaint and subsequent court testimony, particularly regarding the venue and manner of a marriage ceremony, significantly undermine the credibility of the complainant's version. (Paras 41-44)
(C) Evidence - Photographs cannot be treated as conclusive proof of a marriage ceremony unless produced in accordance with the law, which requires the testimony of the person who captured the images or the production of the negatives. (Para 52)
Facts of the case:
The state preferred an appeal against the acquittal of several respondents. The complainant alleged that she was deceived into marrying the first respondent, who was already married, and that other respondents conspired to facilitate this marriage by concealing the first respondent's prior marital status. The prosecution relied on the complainant's testimony, medical reports, and photographs to prove the marriage and subsequent sexual relations.
Findings of Court:
The court found the medical evidence insufficient to prove forceful intercourse. There were glaring discrepancies between the written complaint, which stated the marriage took place in a hotel, and the court testimony, which claimed it occurred in a temple. The court noted that temple bookings were not linked to the accused and that the photographs lacked legal authentication. Furthermore, defense evidence, including an affidavit by the complainant regarding a different marriage, made her testimony unreliable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had provided cogent and reliable evidence to prove the solemnization of the marriage and the fraudulent concealment of the first respondent's previous marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of proof regarding the solemnization of the marriage and given the material contradictions in the witness statements and failures in proving documentary/photographic evidence, the charges under Sections 493, 494, and 495 of the IPC were not established. The benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence favor the acquitted respondents.
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Petitioner Advocates:AG ,Respondent Advocate: NEMO TARA SINGH CHAUHAN MUNISH DATWALIA Surya Chauhan
Table of Contents
2. State argued conspiracy and concealment of prior marriage; defense denied marriage and knowledge. (Para 66 , 67 )
3. Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld for lack of cogent evidence of marriage. (Para 66 , 67 )
4. What evidence is required to prove a valid marriage for the purpose of sections 493, 494, and 495 IPC?
Cogent evidence of solemnization must exist; contradictions in the complainant's version raise doubts, and photographs alone are insufficient. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 )
5. Can an acquittal be reversed on appeal if the prosecution's star witness is unreliable?
No. An appeal against acquittal requires strong grounds; absence of credible evidence and the benefit of the trial court's acquittal uphold the decision. (Para 66 , 67 )
6. Is a complaint that refers to a hotel marriage, later contradicted by temple marriage, credible?
No. Major discrepancies about the ceremony's location undermine the prosecution case and are not minor omissions. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
2026:HHC:20999
Criminal Appeal No.468 of 2015
Reserved on: 07.04.2026
Date of decision: 02.06.2026
Uploaded on: 02.06.2026
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Appellant.
Versus
Kamal Kishore & Ors. …Respondents.
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjanr Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the appellanot : Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.
For the respondents : Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 5 & 6.
: Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
1. State has preferred this appeal against judgment dated 24.02.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No.02 of 2013 titled ‘State of H.P. vs. Kamal Kishore & Ors.’ arising out of FIR No.118 dated 17.08.2012, registered at Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur, under Sections 366, 376, 495 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Vide the impugned judgment, respondents have been acquitted of respective charges framed against them under Sections 376, 417, 493, 494, 495 and 120B of IPC.
.
2. Prosecution’s case is that on 17.08.2012, victim-Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1) approached Police Station Barsar Halong with a written application (Exhibit PW-1/A), alleging therein that accused persons had hatched a conspiracy and solemnized her marriage with respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore, who was already married, on 10.07.2012, in a hotel at Shimla and thereafter brought her back to Village Samoh, District Hamirpur, whereas she had not seen village Lahorli Kalwal, where respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore had been residing with his uncle (Fufa) and aunty (Bua).
3. It was further alleged that respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore used to visit her in Village Samoh in the house of respondent No.2- Meena Kumari and had sexual intercourse with her whenever he visited there. According to the complainant, her marriage was solemnized by concealing the fact that respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore had already married Shalini Devi (PW-2) in the year 2004, and this fact came in her knowledge on 16.08.2012, when her mother called upon members of Mahila Mandal, whereupon she realized that injustice had been done to her.
4. PW-1 Rinki @ Jyoti, in her complaint, named Meena Kumari, Sarita Devi, Kamal Kishore, Promila Devi and Harbanshi Devi, as well as Mahinder and his wife, as persons who were present at the time of solemnization of her marriage with Kamal Kishore, and further alleged that a photo album was also prepared during the marriage ceremony.
5. The aforesaid written application (Exhibit PW-1/A), apart from complainant-Rinki @ Jyoti (PW-1), was also signed by Kamla Devi (PW-5), Pradhan, Mahila Mandal, Kanchan Devi, Ward Panch, Samoh, as well as Sandesh Kumari and Lata Devi.
6. On the basis of written application (Exhibit PW-1/A), on 17.08.2012 FIR (Exhibit PW-15/A) was registered at Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur.
7. Investigation was carried out and, after finding sufficient material to prosecute the respondents, challan was presented before the Court under Sections 376, 417, 493, 495 and 120B IPC against respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and under Sections 417, 495 and 120B IPC against remaining respondents, namely, Meena Kumari, Jagdev Singh, Sarita Devi, Promila Devi and Harbanshi Devi.
8. After committal by the Magistrate to the Sessions Judge, finding a, prima facie, case of commission of offence under Section 376, 493, 494, 495 and 417 read with Section 120B of IPC by the respondent No.1-Kamal Kishore and under Section 417 read with Section 120B by remaining respondents/accused, charges were framed against them accordingly. On pleading not guilty, respondents were subjected to trial.
9. To establish prosecution case, 18 witnesses were examined and thereafter statements of the respondents under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) were recorded. Four defence witnesses (DWs)
