Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.14 of 2000 IN SLA 94 of 99 =========================================================== Jugal Devi, Wife of Sri Kamli Singh, Mother of Late Shanti Devi (the complainant), Resident of Village Pahsara, P.S. Noakothi, District Begusarai. .... .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Nand Kishore Singh, Son of Kedar Singh, Resident of Village Shyampur, P.S. Khodawandpur, District Begusarai. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Ms. Abha Singh, Amicus Curiae For the Res. No. 2 : Mr. Ram Sumiran Singh, Advocate For the State : None =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-07-2012 S.A. Khan, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant. Ms. Abha Singh is appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case who is present in Court. 2. This appeal arises out of a judgment of acquittal dated 30.8.1999, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 122 of 1991 by the 4th Additional Session Judge, Begusarai acquitting Nand Kishore Singh for an offence allegedly committed under [STATUTE] . The Trial Court i.e. the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai had convicted the opposite party to undergo R.I. for 2 years for an offence under [STATUTE] vide his Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.14 of 2000 dt.05-07-2012 2 / 5 2 order dated 26.3.1991. On appeal the opposite party was acquitted on the ground that none of the witness have stated that they had seen the actual marriage of Nand Kishore Singh to one Manimala Devi. The appeal has been filed on behalf of the mother of the complainant Shanti Devi as she died after the judgment of acquittal. Altogether 7 witnesses have been examined in this case. 3. P.W. 1 has been examined and he says that he along with others has seen the marriage ceremony. The marriage is said to have taken place at Village Hanuman Gadhi. He claims that he does not know anybody in Village Hanuman Gadhi and neither can he give the description of the place where the marriage took place. He further states that he cannot recognize the persons who were present during the wedding ceremony. The Court has not considered the evidence of P.W. 1 as this witness has not stated the date on which the wedding took place and has not given an explanation of his presence at the village where he knows nobody. P.W. 2 is the brother of the complainant. He claims that he heard that his brother-in-law had got married to Manimala Devi. Similarly P.W. 3 also claims that he had heard that Nand Kishore Singh had married second time with Manimala Devi, Daughter of Parmanand Singh. P.W. 4 is the complainant. She claims that she was married with Nand Kishore Singh and had lived with him at various places where he was posted. Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.14 of 2000 dt.05-07-2012 3 / 5 3 In January, 1988 when she went to her meet her husband, she saw that he was living with another woman. On protest by her she was assaulted by her husband. She admits that she did not have any children but denies the fact that she ever consented her husband to marry again. She also admits that her husband had sold her jewellery and purchased lands which are in her possession. According to the complainant she has only been once to the house of Nand Kishore Singh where she saw Manimala Devi living with her husband. A suggestion has been made that Manimala Devi is her cousin (Fua’s daughter) which she has denied. She claims that she learnt from one Ramanuj and Ram Pravesh, who have not been examined in this case regarding the alleged marrige. It would appear from her evidence that the complainant apart from the one time that she went her husband’s house, she never repeated the visit and on the basis of the aforesaid single visit she claims that her husband has remarried. It is also clear that she has no cogent evidence to show that infact her husband had remarried or that any one known to her had witnessed the actual marriage. This witness does not name P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 who claimed to be the eye witnesses before the Trial Court as one of the persons who had informed her regarding the alleged marriage. Infact she names a third person which goes to show that nobody had actually seen the accused marrying Manimala Devi or had witnessed them Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.14 of 2000 dt.05-07-2012 4 / 5 4 living together. P.W. 5 is a formal witness who has proved Exts. 1 and 3 which is the signature of the advocate of the Vakalatnama. P.W. 6 could have been good witness for the purposes of proving the marriage ceremony but he did not turn up for cross-examination and as such has not been considered by the Court. P.W. 7 is Ramanuj Singh, brother of Shanti Devi. He is a hearsay witness with respect to the alleged marriage. 4. On perusal of the evidence it would appear that none of the witnesses have supported the case that Nand Kishore Singh had married Manimala Devi, inasmuch as none has seen the actual marriage ceremony or even say that they had prove to show that Manimala Devi was living as a wife over a period of time with Nand Kishore Singh. They have also not been able to show by any other evidence that Nand Kishore Singh had declared that he had married second time considering the fact that he was a government servant and was bound to declare this fact. A defence has been raised on behalf of the prosecution that the complainant never ever lived with her husband and she preferred to live at Begusarai. It is also said that her husband had purchased agricultural property as well as 10 Dhurs of land for residential purposes for his wife. Manimala Devi had appeared before the Court and taken bail. On the other hand a defence has been raised that the complainant had set up someone as Manimala Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.14 of 2000 dt.05-07-2012 5 / 5 5 Devi and as such

Applicable IPC Section: 494

Statute Text:
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Marrying again during the life-time of a husband or wife. Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.