EMPEROR Vs. MANJU HANUMANT NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of acquittal passed by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Honavar. Accused No. 1 was charged under Section 3 of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946, read with Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, and accused No. 2 under Section 6 of the same Act.

(2.) The prosecution case was that accused No. 1 contracted marriage on or about May 17, 1947, with accused No. 2 when he had another wife living. It is to be borne in mind that the fact that accused No. 1 married accused No, 2 is not disputed or challenged by the defence, nor is it disputed or challenged that accused No. 1 has another wife living. The only question that falls for determination in this appeal is, whether accused No. 1 married accused No. 2 on May 17, 1947, or at least some time after the new Act came into force, which was on November 6, 1946. [His Lordship then discussed the evidence and proceeded:]

(3.) We, therefore, feel that in view of this strong circumstantial evidence the prosecution had established that accused Nos. 1 and 2 got married some time about May 17, 1947, and in view of this evidence, the evidence of the Pujari and of the two band-men also receives added importance and significance. As we have already pointed out, by itself that might not establish anything, but read in conjunction with other evidence, that evidence clearly goes to show that those ceremonies were performed and the band-men were employed not in connection with any Puja but in connection with the marriage which had taken place about that time.