MOHAN LAL Vs. BALBIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHAN Lal petitioner has filed this revision against the judgment dated 27th September, 1974, passed by Shri Avtar Singh Gill, Additional Sessionss Judge, Ludhiana, by which his appeal against the judgment of judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana dated 26th March, 1974 convicting and sentencing him under section 494, Indian Penal Code to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, has been dismissed.

(2.) THE complainant's case as set up by Balbir Kaur (P. W. 4) at the trial as under: It is alleged that she was married to Mohan Lal petitioner 1962 at Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana, according to Hindu customs and rites, that a daughter was born out of the wedlock who died immediately after birth and two more children were born who are still living ; that the petitioner started demanding more dowry and started maltreating her; that he married second time with Smt. Gurdial Kaur village Ballowal it which fact she came to know on 4th March,1970 through one Kartar Singh of village Jamalpur. She produced Kartar Singh (P.W. 1) Bachn. (P.W. 2) Bant Singh (P. W. 3) and Nikka Singh Chowkidar (P. W. and herself appeared as P. W. 4 in support of her allegation These witnesses supported her version and deposed that petitioner's marriage with Gurdial Kaur of village Ballowal took place in the year 1968 and that a son named Gurmail Singh was born to Gurdial Kaur co -accused on 16th July, 1969 from the loins of Mohan Lal petitioner. Originally, the complaint was filed against six persons, namely, Mohan Lal, petitioner and his co -accused. Faqir Chand, Amar Kaur, Gurdial Kaur, Mst. Shanti and Rant Lok. The co -accused were, however, acquitted by the learned Magistrate, but the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The petitioner when examined under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, had denied the allegations made in the complaint.

(3.) MR . S. S. Kang, learned counsel for the petitioner, canvassed that the parties were Hindus and that the complainant has failed to prove that the alleged second marriage of the petitioner with Smt. Gurdial Kaur was a validity solemnised marriage in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites. His precise contention is that the parties are Hindus and their first marriage according to the allegations in the complaint was performed according to Hindu customs and rites ; that the evidence, which was adduced in this case, disclosed that the marriage between the petitioner and Smt. Gurdial Kaur was performed in the presence of Shri Guru Granth Sahib according to the Anand Karaj ceremony of the Sikhs and hence it cannot be called as a valid marriage in the eye of law and consequently, the conviction under section 494, Indian Penal Code, is bad.