Crl.Revision No.2772 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.2772 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 16.07.2009 Suresh Kumari ....Petitioner(s) vs. The State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Vikas Vishnoi, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) This petition has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment dated 16.9.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, vide which accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. Petitioner was married to Satpal-respondent No.2, on 11.5.1984 and out of the wedlock, a son was born, who was 11 years of age at the time of filing of the F.I.R. It was alleged by her that on 19.11.2000, her husband Satpal contracted a second marriage with Sunita-respondent No.3 against her wishes and was residing separately in house No.3947. It has been alleged that on 6.2.2001 when she visited the house of her husband to enquire about her husband Satpal, with regard to his illegal act of having contracted a second marriage with accused Sunita, both the accused got infuriated and gave her beatings and dragged her out of the house. The Crl.Revision No.2772 of 2008 -2- brother of the complainant Sukhbir Singh and one Krishan Kumar accompanying him came there and rescued her from the accused. Threats were hurled on her. She disclosed this fact to her parents and villagers and despite efforts to resolve the matter amicably, accused-Satpal did not repent in continuing to stay with his second wife Sunita. To prove the case, the prosecution examined the complainant, Smt.Suresh Kumari, PW-1, Data Ram-Sub Inspector (Investigating Officer) PW-2, Rani (real sister of the complainant and sister-in-law of Satpal being married to Mohinder Singh, real brother of Satpal) PW-3, Krishan Kumar PW-4 and Sukhbir Singh PW-5. In defence, H.C. Om Parkash Police Station, Julana appeared as DW-1, H.C. Satbir Singh Police Station City Jind appeared as DW-2 and Constable Raj Kumar, Police Station Narnaund, appeared as DW-3 and Devinder Singh, Lecturer, Political Science, Govt.Sr.Secondary School, Narnaund, District Hissar as DW-4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that overwhelming evidence has been produced on record to prove the fact of second marriage of the accused Satpal with Sunita during the subsistence of first marriage with Suresh Kumari. He further submits that the incident of beating by the two accused of the complainant also stand proved from the evidence so produced by the prosecution. He submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in the right perspective and has wrongly acquitted the accused. I have gone through the records of the case as well as the impugned judgment. No specific/documentary evidence has been produced on record with regard to the accusation of charge of bigamy levelled against the accused. Statements which have been made by the complainant- Crl.Revision No.2772 of 2008 -3- Suresh Kumari are sketchy which although specify the date as 19.11.2000 but no other corroboration has come-forth from any other source; especially the real sister of the complainant, namely, Rani, who is wife of Mohinder Singh, real brother of accused-Satpal has not hinted about the presence of Suresh Kumari in the second marriage of the accused. She has made general and vague statement with regard to the accused having tied the nuptial knot and could not give any date, month or year of the second marriage of the accused in her examination-in-chief rather in her cross- examination she has totally changed her version and stated that she had participated in the Barat which consisted of 15 to 20 persons, and her parents-in-law, Dewar and Dewarani had also participated in the Barat. If Rani PW-3 had indeed participated in the marriage, she would have known and visited the village Sherda to which accused No.3 Sunita belongs. She could not disclose the location of the house of Sunita. There is nothing on record which could easily prove the allegations of bigamy against the accused. As regards the alleged incident dated 6.2.2001, when she was beaten up and threatened by the accused on her visit to the house where Satpal and Sunita were residing together, the same also does not inspire confidence as the complainant herself is not very sure about the date, time and month as to when the incident occurred. According to her version, the complainant went to the house of Satpal after 5 to 10 days of the marriage when she was beaten up. If the date of the second marriage of accused Satpal with Sunita is taken as 9.11.2000 as has been asserted by the complainant, the visit would either come to last week of November or early December. In cross-examination, she says that she had been beaten by the Crl.Revision No.2772 of 2008 -4- accused in summer. All this goes on to show that the prosecution has not been able to prove the allegations of beating against the accused. The alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Krishan Kumar PW-4 and Sukhbir Singh PW-5, have also been unable to justify the time as to when the incident took place. PW-4 Krishan Kumar has stated the incident to be of 6.1.2001. It has been stated by him in his cross-examination that he never took Suresh Kumari for her medical examination whereas complainant-Suresh Kumari has stated that she was taken for her medical examination by Krishan Kumar. Sukhbir Singh has no where stated in his examination-in-chief about the date, time and month of the incident of beating. It has further come in his cross-examination that the application was moved to the police in the police post on 6.2.2001 at about 10/11 A.M. whereas the application Exhibit P-8 which was the basis for registration of the FIR was moved to the Incharge of the Police Post on 11.2.2001 i.e. after 5 days of the occurrence. All this goes to show in consistency and discrepancy in the statements made by the witnesses which has cast a serious doubt about the incident actually having taken place. Further, the defence has been able to prove that the complainant has been prone to filing false complaints against her husband- Satpal which is apparent from the evidence produced by DW-2 H.C. Satbir Singh, Police Station City Jind, who had proved copy of F.I.R. No.446 dated 24.10.2001 under Sections 342, 447, 323, 392, 506 and 120-B IPC (Exhibit D-2) which was got registered by Suresh Kumari-complainant in which cancellation report was submitted. Similarly, DW-3 Constable Raj Kumar Police Station Narnaund proved the copy of F.I.R.No.92 dated 22.4.2001 registered under Section 323, 324, 325 IPC (Exhibit D-3) which Crl.Revision No.2772 of 2008 -5- again was registered on the statement of the complainant against the accused Satpal which again after investigation, was cancelled. All this goes to show that there is no consistency in the statement of the complainant and she is all out to harass her husband Satpal. The requirement of law for proving the offence of bigamy is the subsistence of the first marriage and the accused concerned must have contracted a second marriage. In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged second marriage of accused Satpal with Sunita as the essential ceremonies constituting the marriage have not been proved. For proving a marriage to be a marriage in the eyes of law, it should be solemnised in accordance with the requirement of law. If no evidence is produced, Datta, Homa and Satpati had been performed at the time of second marriage, the said marriage cannot constitute a second marriage which would bring the same within the ambit of Section 494 IPC attracting punishment. In the present case, the requirement of law has not been satisfied which would hold the accused guilty of the charges levelled against them. There is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and it has rightly acquitted respondents No.2 and 3 of the charges framed against them. Finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same stands dismissed. July 16, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE