M.M. Punchhi, J. - (1.) ON being convicted of bigamous conduct under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code, the present revision petition is at the instance of Darshan Singh Petitioner. His wife Gurdev Kaur filed a complaint against him under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code, his alleged second wife Kuldip Kaur and 6 other persons including his parents. The trial Court discharged the afore referred to 6 persons, charged Darshan Singh Petitioner under Sec. 496 of the Indian Penal Code and his alleged second wife Kuldip Kaur under Sec. 494/109 of the Indian Penal Code but ultimately convicted the former and acquitted the latter by giving her benefit of doubt the sentence imposed on him was 9 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 00/ - in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissed his appeal against the order of the trial Magistrate On revision to this Court, he was ordered to be released on bail on February 8. 1 77 He challenges his conviction and sentence.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the complainant was that Darshan Singh accused was a Jat Sikh and thus a Hindu as defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That law enjoins monogamy for a Hindu. It is unlawful for Hindu male to marry a second time in the presence of a subsisting marriage between him and his first wife. It is alleged that on January 20. 197(sic)., Darshan Singh Petitioner was married with Kuldip Kaur(sic) since acquitted, as per custom and religion prevalent among the Hindu Jat Sikhs. The complainant claimed herself to be the first wife of Darshan Singh Petitioner having married him on March 16, 1963. She alleged that since she could not give birth to a child, she was subjected to malireatmen and merciless beating and ultimately turned out of his house. Despite persuasion by all the r latives for her rehabilitation, there was no response from the Petitioner. It was also averred by her that the Petitioner had obtained an ex parte decree for restitution of coojugal rights against her without getting her legally served. With regard to second marriage, she claim ed that it had taken place at village Ghankas, tensil Samrala, district t udhiana(sic), according to Anand Karaj ceremony which was performed by Ram Singh P. W. 3 and witnessed by others. The trial Court believed the version of the complainant and her witnesses and ultimately, as said before, convicted the Petitioner, which order was maintained by the Court of Appeal.
(3.) AN interesting but a subtle question of law has been posed by Mr Ajmer Singh learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The question arises from the perusal of the statement of Gurbachan Singh P W. 1 and Ram Singh P W. 3, the eye witnesses to the crime . The relevant evidence where from the question arises may be incorporated here. Gurbachan Singh P.W 1: I went in the marriage party of Darshan Singh. The marriage was performed by Anand Karaj ceremony. Granthi was Ram Singh. Anand Karaj was performed by citation of lamas. In the Jat community Anand Karaj ceremony i being considered as a valid form of marriage. The accused are Jat Sikhs. Ram Singh P. W. 3: I performed the Anand Karaj ceremony between the parties in village Ghankas Kuldip Kaur was married with Darshan Singh, Kuldip Kaur is the daughter of Ajit Singh. The marriage was performed through Law and Anand Karaj * * * * Anand Karaj ceremony was performed in the presence of Guru Granth Sahib. Parties are Jats by caste and in their community Anand Karaj ceremony is a valid ceremony. On the above evidence of the persecution , (which was not challenged or clarified in cross examination) the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the essentials(sic) of the Sikh marriage known as Anand are not proved to have been performed and consequently conviction under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code was unsustainable. Reliance was placed by him on Bhurao Shankar Lakhande and Anr. v/s. The State of Maharashtra : A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1564, where it was held as under. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes the marriage between two Hindus void if two conditions are satisfied: (i) the marriage is solemnized after the commencement of the Act and (ii) at the date of such marriage, either party had a spouse living. The word solemnize' means, in connection with a marriage,' to celebrate the marriage with ceremonies and in due form'. It follows , therefore, that unless the marriage is 'celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and in due form' it cannot be said to be' solemnized.' It is, therefore, essential, for the purpose of S. 17 of the Act. that the marriages to which S. 494, I P. C., applies on account of the provisions of the Act, should have been celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form. Merely going through certain ceremonies with the intention that the parties be taken to be married will not make the ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by any established customs. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court again in Kanwal Ram and others Appellant v/s. Himachal Pradesh Administration : A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 614 reiterated the view taken by them in Bhauro Shankar's case (supra) In the same strain, their Lord ships set aside a conviction under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code in Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v/s. Suresh Chandra Ghose, A.I.R. 1971 S C. 153. It was held that proof of solemnization of the second marriage in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to parties was a pre requisite for conviction in a bigamy case.;