iN^fl^l1 :^1 .-Kj ?Iil8B ;ffi31ii8Si jwWii-Br f~e^i^yS3SI'^CWVty''sy-:'t'?~~~-~~- ••~:-':'~.- -~ -••>-1-'' ..<'•-.-- "CF0000059287 IHTHS.. HISH COCRT OF ti&IiKA ESADESH AT JAB&LPBR ^^^ CBIIQB&I. APPML HO. Kagfauvlr'alias BhoU, spn of Babnran Kumi^ aged E$ ysars^ ^ESTOiaiEBT CBIKINU, APPS&I. TOTOER SEC'EIi^ 37lt(2) OF THB COBE ^"^^'s^^ 'i;;ll^.^ll^I^f^s^l RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.06 12:32:46 +0530 ^-P-R, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 1993. APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Raghuvir alias Bholi. State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Neeraj Mehta, counsel for appellant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PLfor respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (25.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.3.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 230/1992 convicting the accused/appetlant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.6.1991 FIR (Ex.P-4) was lodged by Pramila Bai (PW-1) alleging that her marriage was solemnized with the accused/appellant in the year 1990 and after marriage she came to know that accused/appellant was already married with one Sharda Bai and was having a daughter also. It is alleged that suppressing his earlier marriage, the appellant married her by playing fraud. It is alleged that till three months after marriage with her, she was kept properly but thereafter the accused/appellant and his parents started subjecting her to cruelty and then she was dropped at her parents' house where she again came to know that the accused/appellant had brought back his, first wife namely Sharda Bai. It is alleged that till five months thereafter, neither the appellant nor his relatives ever went to bring her back. It is alleged that once as a result of beating at the hands of the accused/appellant, she had suffered miscarriage and then the report was lodged by her. ••"°ait ^\lt — "2— 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 oftheCode of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. At the out set, counsel for the accused/appellant submits that as the accused/appellant was already married to one Sharda Bai, his second marriage with the complainant (PW-1) during subsistence of his first marriage, is null and void and that being so the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 498-A IPC. He submits that even as per the statement of the complainant, before her marriage with the accused/appellant, she had come to know about his being already married with one Sharda Bai but still she entered into marriage with him and therefore, it does not lie in her mouth that the accused/appellant had played fraud with her by suppressing the factum of his being already married with some other woman. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned passed by the trial Court. He however does not dispute the fact that before her marriage with the appellant; the complainant knew that the appellant was already married to some other woman. 8. Complainant (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that after her engagement with the accused/appellant she had come to know about his being already married with one Sharda Bai but as brother- in-law of the accused had told her that the proceedings for putting first marriage of the accused/appellant to an end were going on, their marriage was finalized. Exactly the same statement has been made by one of the relatives of the complainant namely Teejram »r s®i&-- y. -%- (PW-2) who too has stated that after engagement of the complainant with the accused/appellant, he and his brother-in-law had disclosed to the Panchayat that his first marriage with one Sharda Bai had come to an end. 9. Thus from the statement of the complainant it is clear that even before her marriage with the accused/appellant she was well aware that he was already married with some other woman. As the marriage of the complainant with the accused/appellant was performed during the subsistence of his first marriage with one Sharda Bai, which was well within the knowledge of the complainant even before her marriage with the accused/appellant, hermarriage with him is rendered null and void and this being the position, provisions of section 498-A IPC are not attracted to the case in hand. Dealing with the similar question it has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of Shivcharan Lal Verma and another v. State ofIVLP_reported in 2002 (2) Crimes 177 (SC) that the marriage of the deceased during the subsistence of valid marriage of the appellants, is null and void and conviction under Section 498-A is therefore, liable to be set aside. 10. The court below has failed to take into consideration the fact that the marriage of complainant with the accused/appellant was null and void as it was performed during the subsistence of his first marriage with one Sharda Bai, which was within the knowledge of the complainant also even before her marriage. In these circumstances, impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is palpably illegal and thus liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 15.3.1993 convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant is hereby set aside. Accused/appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Appellant is reported to be on bail. Bail bonds furnished by him stand discharged. ——Sd/- \ pritinker Diwaker n^