IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 CRL.A.No. 250 of 2002() ------------------------------------ C.C.NO.695/1992 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM. ........ APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- USHADEVI P., S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, USHA NIVAS, ANICAD KARA, ANICAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH BABU T.K., S/O. KRISHNAN PILLAI, THARAPPIL VEEDU, LAKKATTOOR KARA,KOOROPPADA VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.A.K.HARIDAS R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. V.TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON 27/03/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. A. No.250 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 27th March, 2009 JUDGMENT The complainant is the appellant. She assails the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused. 2. She filed the complaint against the accused, her husband, and another lady, previously arrayed as second accused, but later discharged, for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the I.P.C. imputing that during the subsistence of the marriage with her, the husband married the 2nd accused. Once the complaint had been dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. and, later, pursuant to the decision in the criminal appeal preferred by the complainant, the dismissal was reversed and the case was remitted for disposal in accordance with law. 3. The case of the complainant in brief is that the first accused married her on 8.6.1986 in accordance with the customs and ceremonies of Hindu Nair Community to which both of them belong. A child was born to them. On account of incessant cruelty inflicted by the accused, she had to leave his company and take shelter with her parents. While so, the accused married another lady (hereinafter referred to as A2 though she had been discharged) on 23.8.1992. Crl.A.250/02 - 2 - The second marriage was soleminised at the residence of the accused in accordance with the customs and ceremonies. 4. The trial proceeded against the accused as he pleaded not guilty to the charges. The complainant had examined P.Ws.1 to 4 to prove her case, but, P.W.4 had passed away before he could be subjected to cross examination. The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the materials, came to the view that the complainant failed to prove that a valid marriage between her and the accused subsisted when the accused is imputed of entering into the second marriage and also that the second marriage had not been proved by satisfactory and convincing evidence. In that view of the matter, the accused was found not guilty and acquitted of the offence indicted. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, questioning its legality, propriety and correctness, the complainant has preferred this appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant urged that the materials tendered in the case had been misappreciated by the court below and it had resulted in leading to erroneous conclusions causing miscarriage of justice. Even admitted facts which have a vital bearing on the disputed issues arising for adjudication had been discarded by the learned Magistrate, according to the Crl.A.250/02 - 3 - counsel, on a wrong premise that admission is not sufficient, but, proof beyond doubt is required. There was no dispute that a valid marriage subsisted between the accused and the complainant and, in fact, the evidence of the complainant as P.W.1 and her father as P.W.2 with respect to the first marriage as between the complainant and the accused in accordance with the customs and ceremonies of that community, according to the counsel, remained unchallenged. But, still, the court below was not prepared to hold that a valid marriage subsisted between the complainant and the accused for the reason that the customs and ceremonies of that marriage soleminised in accordance with the personal law of the parties had not been narrated in explicit detail in evidence. There was absolutely no necessity to do so when the validity and subsistence of the marriage between the accused and the complainant was not disputed, submits the learned counsel. Similarly, the second marriage of the accused during the subsistence of his valid marriage with the complainant proved by the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses, the subtractum of the prosecution case set up against the accused, was also held by the learned Magistrate as not proved for the absence of documentary evidence substantiating that marriage and also for the Crl.A.250/02 - 4 - reason that the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses are interested. In a case of this nature, according to the learned counsel, the best evidence that could be tendered is that of the affected parties and it cannot be brushed aside as interested and partisan. Minor discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses were given serious projections to doubt the intrinsic worth of the complainant's case regarding the second marriage of her husband while his marital life with her still continued. The entire materials in the case, according to the counsel, were evaluated and appreciated by the court below on the premise that to prove an offence under Section 494 I.P.C., the evidence must be of such a nature capable of withstanding strict standard of proof as regards the validity of both marriages , the first marriage of the accused with the complainant and also of his second marriage with another during the subsistence of the previous marriage. The rigour of proof required on those aspects, according to the court below, was very high and as such the admission on the disputed questions by the accused was treated as having no value or merit. The learned counsel for the complainant relying on Karthiayani v. Viswanathan (2006 KHC 1382) contended that the approach followed by the court below and Crl.A.250/02 - 5 - its appreciation of evidence in examining the cardinal issues involved was patently wrong, and to advance the ends of justice, the unmerited acquittal rendered in favour of the accused has to be interfered with. Inviting my attention to some additional documents produced by the complainant in the appeal, the learned counsel urged that, if, for any reason, the reception of additional evidence is not possible, and that the materials already tendered in the case on the disputed questions in case found not sufficient to enter definite findings thereof, the complainant be given an opportunity to give further evidence, setting aside the acquittal and remitting the case. 6. The learned counsel for the accused relying on a number of authorities, namely, Bhaurao v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 1564), Kanwal Ram v. H.P.Administration (AIR 1966 S.C. 614), Savithri v. Sankaran (1988(1) KLT 423) and P.P.Shylaja v. Premajan & Another (2005 (1) KLJ 904), contended that the acquittal rendered in the case on the materials tendered is strictly in accordance with the settled principles of law that in order to prove an indictment of the offence under Section 494 I.P.C., there must be unimpeachable evidence substantiating the existence of a valid prior marriage of the complainant with the accused and also that his Crl.A.250/02 - 6 - second marriage was solemnised in accordance with the essential rites and ceremonies and but for the first marriage, it would have been valid. When that be so, whatever be the admission of the accused on any of the disputed issues, it would not exonerate the complainant from the burden of proving both the marriages. Where the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving both the marriages, as in the present case, the indictment under Section 494 I.P.C. would fail, contends the counsel. So far as the first marriage of the complainant with the accused, she had not let in convincing evidence nor even spoken to the rites performed for soleminisation of the marriage when she was examined as P.W.1, is the submission of the learned counsel. In respect of the second marriage, the evidence of the complainant and also her witnesses was rightly and correctly found by the learned Magistrate, according to the counsel, as artificial, unreliable and not trustworthy. So, in any view of the matter, both on the facts presented and the law applicable, according to the learned counsel, the acquittal rendered in favour of the accused does not call for any interference and deserves only to be upheld. 7. The complainant was examined as P.W.1. She examined two Crl.A.250/02 - 7 - more witnesses. P.W.2, her father and P.W.3, a close relative, to prove her case. No documentary evidence was produced. The learned Magistrate having regard to the judicial pronouncements of this court and also the apex court, which are referred to in the judgment, was of the view that admission of the accused of having married the complainant was not sufficient proof to hold that their marriage was soleminised strictly in accordance with the rites and ceremonies to conclude that a valid marriage took place between the parties. Oral evidence tendered by the complainant as to her first marriage with the accused was found not satisfactory to prove that a valid marriage was soleminised between them. It was held that the complainant had not proved that a marriage between her and the accused was soleminised with the rites and ceremonies of their personal law or recognised by the custom prevailing in their community and, thus, a valid marriage subsisted when the alleged second marriage of her husband with another was performed. So far as the second marriage imputed against the accused, after analysing the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses, the learned Magistrate was of the view that it was too artificial and not trustworthy. The contradictions in the evidence of the complainant and that of her father as to how Crl.A.250/02 - 8 - information of the second marriage was received and the apparent improbability of the complainant and her witnesses witnessing the soleminisation of the marriage allegedly held at the residential building of the accused, the strange conduct of the complainant and the witnesses of not causing any obstruction despite witnessing the marriage, the failure of the complainant and also her father not reporting the second marriage to the police or seeking the assistance of police to prevent that marriage and the complaint was filed 25 days after the alleged second marriage soleminised in the presence of the complainant and also her witnesses, as borne out by the materials tendered in the case, persuaded the learned Magistrate to hold that the assertion of the complainant and her witnesses witnessing the second marriage is not reliable, credible and convincing. In that view of the matter, the soleminisation of the second marriage of the accused with another, it was held, was not satisfactorily established by reliable evidence. 8. The essential ingredients to be proved to constitute an offence under Section 494 I.P.C. are: (1) the accused spouse must have contracted the first valid marriage (2) the accused spouse during the subsistence of the previous valid marriage contracted a Crl.A.250/02 - 9 - second marriage and (3) both the marriages must be valid in the sense that the necessary ceremonies required by the personal law or the custom followed by the parties, had been duly performed. There could be no offence of bigamy in the absence of any of the essential ingredients as mentioned above. So much so, the complainant imputing the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. against the accused spouse has to prove that the first marriage between them was a valid marriage and it subsisted at the time of the second marriage of the accused. The first and foremost question emerging in the facts of the present case is whether the complainant has discharged the burden of establishing that her marriage with the complainant was duly performed in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of their community, and thus it was a valid marriage, and its subsistence when the accused allegedly contracted the second marriage. Apart from the oral evidence tendered by the complainant and her witnesses including her father, the admission of the accused recognising the complainant as his wife and also the earlier proceedings initiated by him for restitution of conjugal rights were relied by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that the subsistence of a valid marriage between the complainant and the Crl.A.250/02 - 10 - accused had been established in the present case. The specific averment in the complaint that the accused had married her in accordance with the religious rites and ceremonies on 8.6.1986, which was never contradicted by the accused was also banked upon by the counsel to contend that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the first marriage was not established, placing reliance on the judicial pronouncements mentioned in the judgment. The complainant has not produced any documents to prove her first marriage and she had not deposed what were the ceremonies undergone to consider whether there was a valid marriage were the circumstances which prompted the Magistrate to conclude that she has not satisfactorily established that her marriage with the accused was valid. I am afraid that the learned Magistrate proceeded with an enquiry on the question of the first marriage of the accused as if the entire case of the complainant on that factum of marriage rested on the admission of the accused and nothing else. True, the admission of the accused on the first marriage or the second marriage alleged, will not relieve the complainant from proving those marriages in a prosecution for the offence under Section 494 of the I.P.C. But, such admissions, if made by the accused, can be safely acted upon if there are other Crl.A.250/02 - 11 - materials in the case to prove the validity of the marriages, the first or second, as the case may be. The complainant has specifically alleged in her complaint that her marriage with the accused was performed in accordance with the religious rites and ceremonies. She has also given evidence that her marriage with the accused was in accordance with the custom of their community. The accused, it has come out, had approached the competent court for restitution of their conjugal rights when she left his company, whatever be the reason thereof. Not only that the accused did not have any dispute as regards the validity of his first marriage with the complainant, but he had moved for restitution of conjugal rights on their separation also, which conduct indicated beyond a shadow of doubt the spouses had entered into a valid marriage entitling both of them to seek appropriate relief as provided by their personal law in the event of any matrimonial dispute. When that be so, insisting the complainant to lead evidence on the rites and ceremonies performed for the soleminisation of their marriage to be brought in evidence, to prove that the accused had a valid first marriage with her is thoroughly unreasonable. When sufficient material is available already on record and further the factum of the first marriage of the complainant with Crl.A.250/02 - 12 - the accused and its validity not only remained undisputed, but, admitted no further burden is cast upon the complainant to prove that the soleminisation of her marriage with the accused was performed in accordance with the rites and ceremonies of their community to accept that marriage as valid. At any rate, in the given facts of the case, on the materials produced, it has to be concluded that the complainant had established that a valid marriage was performed between her and the accused earlier in point of time, and her marriage subsisted at the time of the second marriage. 9. The crucial question involved in the case which alone, it appears, was disputed by the accused, was his second marriage with another lady (A2) during the continuance of his first marital relationship with the complainant. The case of the complainant is that the previous night before the second marriage of her husband she got information of his marriage, to be soleminised the next day at his residence. The information was conveyed by an anonymous call over phone is her version. Whereas she would assert that she received that anonymous call her father, examined as P.W.2, would state he attended the call. Her father would also state that the voice of the caller was familiar but he could not fix his identity. He would Crl.A.250/02 - 13 - further state that the caller gave him not only the information of the soleminisation of the marriage of the accused the next day, but also the name and address of the bride. He noted down the name and address, but still, did not ask the caller his identity, is his evidence. The apparent contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1, the complainant, and her father (P.W.2) as to who received the telephone call by which the information on the marriage was conveyed cannot be brushed aside as an innocuous circumstance since it has a vital effect in testing their veracity whether any one of them had witnessed the second marriage of the accused which is alleged as having been soleminised at his residence, the next day. P.W.1., the complaint, had asserted on receiving the call, though her father was in the next room, she did not call him, but, later, conveyed to him the information received. Her father, P.W.2, would state that he noted down the name and address of the bride after receiving the call, but did not check the identity of the caller even after his voice was found familiar. Pursuant to the information received by the anonymous call, it is the case of the complainant and her father, the next morning they went to the house of the accused and, then, waiting there, witnessed the soleminisation of the marriage. The complainant and Crl.A.250/02 - 14 - her father would also state that they objected to the marriage and even informed A2 and her relatives that the complainant is the first wife of the accused and their marriage still subsisted. The marriage of the accused with A2, according to the complainant, her father, and P.W.3, an independent witness, was performed in the varandha of his residential building, complying with all rites and ceremonies. In this connection, it is pertinent to note in the complaint other than mentioning that the complainant and her close relatives and friends went to the house of the accused and obstructed his marriage with A2, there is no assertion that the complainant or any one in her party witnessed the soleminisation of the marriage. The case of the complainant that the second marriage of the accused with A2 was soleminised in the varandha of the house enabling the complainant and their party who are stated to have obstructed that marriage and despite their continuous presence at the spot can be taken only with a pinch of salt. As pointed out by the learned Magistrate, normally, a marriage, according to the custom in the community of the parties, takes place at the residence of the bride and not that of the bridegroom. A marriage at the house of the bridegroom, of course, though uncommon, is not impossible. The learned Magistrate who Crl.A.250/02 - 15 - had the opportunity to watch the demeanour and deportment of the witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 3) was not at all impressed with their version of witnessing the second marriage of the accused with A2. Their claim of witnessing the marriage which is stated to have taken place at the residence of the first accused, according to the learned Magistrate, is quite artificial and unbelievable. The view taken by the learned Magistrate, in the facts presented in the case, cannot be found fault with. The version of the complainant and her witnesses is that they went to the house of the accused after getting information of his second marriage, to obstruct that marriage. But after making a protest, if their version is accepted, all of them meekly witnessed the soleminisation of the marriage of the accused with A2. The whole ceremony was watched by the complainant and her father without raising any further protest. As rightly pointed out by the learned Magistrate, despite witnessing the second marriage of the accused that too after getting prior information of such marriage, the complainant nor her father approached the police for any assistance to stop the marriage. Matrimonial disputes between the complainant and her husband had already led to several litigations and some of them were even pending at the time of the alleged second marriage Crl.A.250/02 - 16 - of the accused. If at all, the complainant had any prior information of his second marriage, the first thing that could be expected from her, if not approaching the police is to seek legal advice especially when legal proceedings over their marital relationship were pending before the appropriate court. The evidence of the complainant and her witnesses as regards the second marriage of the accused, is totally unconvincing, too artificial and unreliable. So much so, the second ingredient for constituting the offence as to the soleminisation of the second marriage of the accused with A2 in accordance with the rites and ceremonies, rendering a valid marriage but for his first marriage with the complainant, has not been proved by reliable and trustworthy evidence in the case. That being so, the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused holding him not guilty of the offence under Section 494 of the I.P.C. cannot be disturbed. The appeal fails, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE