SANTI DEB BERMA Vs. KANCHAN PRAVADEVI
LAWS(SC)-1990-10-58
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GAUHATI)
Decided on October 10,1990

SANTI DEB BERMA Appellant
VERSUS
KANCHAN PRAVADEVI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

HARI OM VS. SOORAJ PAL [LAWS(ALL)-1995-4-97] [DISTINGUISHED]
NATARI PARVATI VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2003-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
BIDDIKA HADDI VS. SIDIKA BATNALU [LAWS(ORI)-1995-5-41] [REFERRED TO]
SRIDHAR G JINGADE ALIAS S G JINGADE VS. SATYAVATHI [LAWS(KAR)-2000-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
JOYITA SAHA VS. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY [LAWS(CAL)-1999-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
K MUNIANDI VS. M GEETHA [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-535] [REFERRED TO]
SATNAM MOGA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1995-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
KERABAI VS. RAMRAO [LAWS(BOM)-2013-1-239] [REFERRED TO]
PADMA RAMACHANDRAPPA VS. G.RAMACHANDRAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2013-12-17] [REFERRED TO (IN THE CASE OF]
SUMER CHAND VS. KAUSHAIAYA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-1997-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJBAI VS. MAMATA BAI [LAWS(MPH)-2014-5-156] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL SHARMA VS. SHAM LAL [LAWS(J&K)-2006-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATHI VS. THIRUPATHI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-396] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH MOHINDER SINGH VS. GULWANT SINGH:MOHINDER PAL [LAWS(SC)-1991-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
S NAGALINGAM VS. SIVAGAMI [LAWS(SC)-2001-8-54] [REFERRED]
BAI SUKHIBEN VS. HIRABHAI HARIBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2000-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
BINOY KUMAR GUPTA VS. LEELA GUPTA [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H P VS. RAJINDER KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2013-5-67] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDU LAL VS. BIASAN DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2000-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
GIRIJA, W/O LATE SAJIT KUMAR AND ORS VS. NALLAMUTHU AND ORS [LAWS(KER)-2014-1-184] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR PATLE VS. MANJUSHRI PATLE [LAWS(MPH)-2007-12-66] [REFERRED]
KISHORI PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR; MAHENDRA PRASAD MEHTA [LAWS(PAT)-2013-10-80] [REFERRED]
GHANSHYAM GAUTAM VS. VIMLA DEVI & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-236] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRO YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-1-115] [REFERRED TO]
SANJUKTA DEVI VS. DINESH PRASAD SAH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-4-278] [REFERRED TO]
TRIPURARI SHARAN ALIAS T SHARAN VS. MANAGEMENT OF M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-3-84] [REFERRED TO]
TRIPURARI SHARAN ALIAS T SHARAN VS. MANAGEMENT OF M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-3-84] [REFERRED TO]
TARAPADA JANA VS. KUMAR BHAWANI GIRI [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
BADRI VS. JATA SHANKAR [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
PADMAVATHI W/O S JAGADISH KUMAR VS. JAYAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-5-132] [REFERRED TO]
AVINASH KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-7-40] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 16/75 convicting the appellant under S.494, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment till raising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/ -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a direction that out of the fine amount, if collected, a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - should be paid to the complainant. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The appellant while his first marriage, solemnised on 7-7-62 with the respondent complainant (PW-1) is validly subsisting, has contracted a second marriage, with Namita Ghosh on 24-2-1969. The respondent filed a criminal complaint before the Munsiff Magistrate Ist class, Sadar, Agartala and the trial Court convicted the appellant under S. 494, 1. P. C. and sentenced him for 1 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and in addition to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 / -. The rest of the accused who were arraigned along with the appellant were convicted under S. 494 read with S. 109, I.P.C. Besides all the accused were also convicted under S. 119, I.P.C.

(2.)The convicted accused preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Tripura West. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons inclusive of the appellant. It was as against the order of the said acquittal, a criminal appeal was preferred before the High Court, which rendered the impugned judgment convicting the appellant alone under S. 494, I.P.C. and, sentencing him as aforementioned. Hence the present appeal.
(3.)Admittedly, the parties to this proceeding are all Hindus. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant and others mainly on the ground that there was no specific evidence regarding the performance of the essential rite - namely - Saptapadi in regard to the second marriage. The relevant portion of the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge reads thus:
"From the above analysis of the prosecution evidence, it transpires that there is grave doubt as to whether the most essential ceremony of Saptapadi was duly performed."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.