S. C. AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Balwantsingh after obtaining special leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr. P. C. against the judgment dated 29th June, 1977 of the Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur whereby respondent No. 1 was acquitted of the charge u/s 494 IPC and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 Smt. Jaspreetkaur and Smt. Surinderjeet Kaur were acquitted of the charge u/s 494/114 I. P. C.
(2.) THE appellant Balwant Singh had filed a complaint against respondents Nos. 1,2 and 3 wherein it was alleged that respondent No. 1 Harjitender Jeet Singh had been validly married to the daughter of the appellant, Simaranjeet Kaur, on 23. 2. 1969 and during the subsistence of that marriage and during the life time of Smt Simarnjeet Kaur the said respondent No. 1 married Smt. Jaspreet Kaur on 28th March 1975 and that by contracting the aforesaid second marriage respondent No. 1 had committed the offence of bigamy punishable u/s 494 I. P. C. and that respondent No. 2 Smt. Jaspreet kaur who contracted the second marriage with respondent No. 1 and Smt. Surinderjeet Kaur who is the mother of respondent No. 2 had abated the commission of the offence of bigamy and, were therefore, guilty of the offence punishable under section 494/114 I. P. C. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint a charge u/s 494 I. P. C. was framed against respondent No. 1 and a charge u/s 494/114 I. P. C. was framed against respondents Nos 2 and 3 and they were tried by the Judicial Magistrate Karanpur. In support of his case the appellant examined five witnesses viz, Gurdayal Singh (P. W. 1), Balwant Singh (P. W. 2), Gurwant Singh (P. W. 3), Gurdayal Singh (P. W. 4) and Hardeep Singh (P. W. 5) out of which Gurdayal Singh (P. W. 4) and Hardeep Singh (P. W. 6) were examined as the eye witnesses of the second marriage of respondent No 1 with respondent No. 2. Shri Jagat Singh (C. W. 1) and Shambhu Singh (C. W. 2) were examined as court witnesses by the court and the accused persons in their defence examined Lakhvendra Singh (D. W. 1 ). THE Judicial Magistrate by his judgment dated 29th June, 1977 held that the marriage of respondent No. l Harjitenderjeet Singh to Smt. Jaspreetkaur on 23rd February, 1969 had been established but as regards the marriage of respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 on 28th March, 1976 the Judicial Magistrate held that from the evidence adduced by the complainant it was not established that respondent No. 1 had lawfully and validly married respondent No. 2. In view of the aforesaid finding the Judicial Magistrate held that the offence of bigamy is not established and, therefore, he acquitted all the three respondents of the charges that were levelled against them. THEreafter the appellant filed this appeal after obtaining special leave to appeal from this Court. I have heard Shri B. K. Chouhan learned counsel for the appellant and Shri ML. Garg, learned counsel for the respondents. In so far as the offence of bigamy is concerned the law is well settled that the prosecution has to establish that the second marriage was a valid marriage in accordance with law or custom. In Bhaurao vs. State of Maharashtra (1), it has been laid down that the prosecution has to prove that the alleged second marriage had been duly performed in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to the form of marriage and that the said marriage must be a valid one according to the law applicable to the parties. Similarly in Kanwalram vs. Himachal Pradesh Administration (2), held that in order to establish the charge of bigamy, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the second marriage had been validly performed in accordance with the law and custom and that the essential ceremonies required for such marriages have been performed. To the same effect are the decisions of the Supreme Court in Chand Singh vs. Surjit Kaur (3), and Priyabala vs. Suresh Chandra (4 ). In the present case the only witnesses who have deposed that the second marriage had taken place on 28tb March, 1976 are Gurdayal Singh (P. W. 4), Hardeep Singh (P. W. 5) and Jagat Singh (c. w. 1), Gurdayal Singh (P. W. 4) has stated that Harjitender Jeet Singh and Jaspreet kaur were married in his presence in accordance with the Sikh Dharam. He has not mentioned as to what ceremonies were required to be performed for solemnisation of a marriage in accordance with Sikh Dharam and whether all the said ceremonies have been performed. Similarly Hardeep Singh (P. W. 5) has stated that Jaspreet Kaur had married Harjitenderjeet Singh on 28th March, 1976 and Surinderjeet Kaur was present at that time and the said marriage was performed in accordance with the Sikh Dharam and in the "prakash" of 'guru Granth Sahib'. He also has not stated as to the ceremonies which are required to be performed and whether the said ceremonies were performed in his presence or not. Jagat Singh (C. W. 1) has deposed that he had performed the marriage of Harjitenderjeet Singh with Jaspreet Kaur and he has stated that 'anand Karaj' was done at the house of Surinder Jeet Kaur and that it was done in accordance with the Sikh Dharam and that 'lavon ka Path' was also performed. The said witness also not deposed with regard to the ceremonies required to be performed in a Sikh marriage and whether all those ceremonies were performed in the marriage of Harjitenderjeet Singh with Jaspreet Kaur. In Chand Singh vs. Surjit Kaur (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of a marriage between two Sikhs and the evidence that had been adduced to prove the second marriage was that 'anand Karaj' was performed. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court were of the view that the said evidence was not enough to prove the marriage because there was nothing to show that the necessary ceremonies of the marriage had been duly performed. The present case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Chand Singh v. Surjit Kaur (supra)because here also the only evidence that has been adduced is that 'anand Karaj' was performed. In my opinion, therefore, the Judicial Magistrate was right in holding that the complainant has failed to prove that a valid second marriage was performed between respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and in the absence of a valid and lawful marriage between the parties the offence of bigamy cannot be held to have been established. In the circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate.
(3.) THUS there is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. .;