BHAGIRATH AND OTHER Vs. BALLI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) Shri K.S.Lodha learned counsel representing the petitioners urged that the respondent complainant did not lead any evidence 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 crossexamined 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 Priya Bala Ghosh Vs. Suresh Chandra Ghosh, (1971) SCC(Cri) 362 and S.Nagalingam Vs. Sivagami, (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 socalled 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 order passed by the revisional court and to restore the trial court's order.

(3.) 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.