Advocates:
['VINEET JAIN', 'KS LODHAKS LODHA ASHOK KUMAR', 'KS LODHA', 'PP', 'KAUSHAL GAUTAM', 'PANKAJ GUPTA', 'SK VERMA']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1407 / 2015

1. Bhagirath S/o Sh. Ramu Ram,

2. Shanti Devi D/o Sh. Anaram,

Both residents of Village Udasar, Tehsil and District: Bikaner

(Raj.)

----Petitioners

Versus

Balli Devi W/o Sh. Bhagirath, by caste Meghwal, Resident of

Government Secondary School, Loonkaransar, District: Bikaner

(Raj.)

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.K.S.Lodha.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Kaushal Gautam.

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Judgment / Order

Date of Pronouncement

:

19/01/2018

By way of this revision, the accused petitioners have

approached this Court for challenging the order dated 31.10.2015

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner

accepting the revision filed by the respondent Balli Devi and

setting aside the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by learned

Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases), Bikaner in

Cr.Case No.133/2014 whereby the learned trial Judge had

discharged the petitioners from the offence under Section 494

I.P.C.

Shri K.S.Lodha learned counsel representing the petitioners

urged that the respondent complainant did not lead any evidence

(2 of 5)

[CRLR-1407/2015]

whatsoever so as to even prima-facie establish that the petitioners

contracted a valid second marriage by following the essential

Hindu rituals and ceremonies. He urged that the complainant who

was married to the petitioner Bhagirath about 40 years ago,

lodged the complaint before the trial court on 5.8.2016 with a bald

allegation that the accused petitioners had married each other

during the subsisting marriage of petitioner No.1 Bhagirath with

the complainant. He contended that the complainant Balli Devi

examined only herself in support of the complaint. When cross-

examined at the pre-charge stage, she admitted not having

personally witnessed the alleged second marriage being

solemnised between the petitioners. She categorically admitted

that she did not see the accused Bhagirath bringing Shanti Devi

into his home. He urged that the aspersion of second marriage

made by the complainant against the petitioners was merely

based on voter list entry, ration card and some court proceedings

which purportedly portrayed Shanti Devi as the wife of Bhagirath.

Shri Lodha relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the cases of Smt.Priya Bala Ghosh Vs. Suresh

Chandra Ghosh reported in 1971 SCC (Cri) 362 and

S.Nagalingam Vs. Sivagami reported in 2001 SCC (Cri)

1273 and urged that as the complainant failed to lead any

evidence whatsoever regarding performance of the essential hindu

rites and ceremonies for substantiating the allegation of the so-

called second marriage between the accused petitioners, they

cannot be tried for the offence of bigamy punishable under Section

494 I.P.C. He thus implored the Court to set aside the impugned

(3 of 5)

[CRLR-1407/2015]

order passed by the revisional court and to restore the trial court’s

order.

Per contra learned counsel Shri Kaushal Gautam

representing the respondent complainant vehemently opposed the

submissions advanced by Shri Lodha and urged that entry of the

names of the present petitioners as spouses in the voter list and in

the Ration Card is sufficient proof of the fact that they are married

to each other. He further submitted that when the summons were

issued to Bhagirath in proceedings of maintenance by the

competent trial court, Shri Pradeep S/o Bhagirath and Smt.Shanti

accepted the notice and marked a reply that his father Bhagirath

was posted as a Patwari and was presently serving at Gharsana.

He urged that this categoric admission as recorded in the

contemporary proceedings between the parties is also sufficient to

draw an