DARSHAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON being convicted of bigamous conduct under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code, the present revision petition is at the instance of Darshan Singh Petitioner. His wife Gurdev Kaur filed a complaint against him under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code, his alleged second wife Kuldip Kaur and 6 other persons including his parents. The trial Court discharged the afore referred to 6 persons, charged Darshan Singh Petitioner under Sec. 496 of the Indian Penal Code and his alleged second wife Kuldip Kaur under Sec. 494/109 of the Indian Penal Code but ultimately convicted the former and acquitted the latter by giving her benefit of doubt the sentence imposed on him was 9 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 00/ - in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissed his appeal against the order of the trial Magistrate On revision to this Court, he was ordered to be released on bail on February 8. 1 77 He challenges his conviction and sentence.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the complainant was that Darshan Singh accused was a Jat Sikh and thus a Hindu as defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That law enjoins monogamy for a Hindu. It is unlawful for Hindu male to marry a second time in the presence of a subsisting marriage between him and his first wife. It is alleged that on January 20. 197(sic)., Darshan Singh Petitioner was married with Kuldip Kaur(sic) since acquitted, as per custom and religion prevalent among the Hindu Jat Sikhs. The complainant claimed herself to be the first wife of Darshan Singh Petitioner having married him on March 16, 1963. She alleged that since she could not give birth to a child, she was subjected to malireatmen and merciless beating and ultimately turned out of his house. Despite persuasion by all the r latives for her rehabilitation, there was no response from the Petitioner. It was also averred by her that the Petitioner had obtained an ex parte decree for restitution of coojugal rights against her without getting her legally served. With regard to second marriage, she claim ed that it had taken place at village Ghankas, tensil Samrala, district t udhiana(sic), according to Anand Karaj ceremony which was performed by Ram Singh P. W. 3 and witnessed by others. The trial Court believed the version of the complainant and her witnesses and ultimately, as said before, convicted the Petitioner, which order was maintained by the Court of Appeal.

(3.) AN interesting but a subtle question of law has been posed by Mr Ajmer Singh learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The question arises from the perusal of the statement of Gurbachan Singh P W. 1 and Ram Singh P W. 3, the eye witnesses to the crime . The relevant evidence where from the question arises may be incorporated here.