TATIA, J. - (1.) BRIEF facts of the case are that one Narayan Singh lodged a written report at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar on 26. 05. 1987 stating therein that his sister Smt. Raj Kanwar was married with accused-petitioner Bhanwar Singh. The marriage was solemnized on 10th Feb. , 1985 and dowry was also given to Bhanwar Singh at the time of marriage. After about 10 days the accused-petitioner Bhanwar Singh started beating his sister Raj Kanwar and accused demanded more dowry. When the informant received this information, he went to Sikar and there he came to know that Bhanwar Singh was already married before his marriage with Raj Kanwar and further he has solemnized one more marriage on 13. 05. 1987. In the complaint, he further said that the accused used to beat and sent Raj Kanwar to Jaipur, but the complainant used to pacify the matter and he took Raj Kanwar to Sikar many a times. The complainant further stated that Bhanwar Singh took his sister to Delhi and put her in hotel. There he tried to sell the complainant's sister, but she somehow ran way from Delhi and reached to Jaipur. She told the story to the complainant. It is stated in the complaint that the accused is in habit of solemnizing one after another marriage and he is involved in business of selling the ladies. After investigation, the prosecution submitted the charge-sheet before the trial Court under Section 498a IPC against the petitioner-accused Bhanwar Singh and his father Hanuman Singh.
(2.) THE Trial Court after framing charge against both the accused, completed the trial of the case. In the Trial Court, the prosecution produced witnesses, PW-1 Narayan Singh, PW-2, Ram Singh, PW-3 Raj Kanwar, PW-4 Hari Prasad, PW-5 Shiv Dayal, PW-6 Mahipal Singh, PW-7 Mooli Devi, PW-8 Umrao Kanwar and PW-9 Ram Singh. THE accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. THE accused merely stated in the statement that whatever the witnesses are saying are wrong and they have not taken any specific defence in their statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. THE trial Court after trial convicted the accused Bhanwar Singh and Hanuman Singh under Section 498a IPC and passed the sentence of one year's simple imprisonment for each of the accused with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The accused-petitioners preferred appeal against the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The appellate court vide judgment dated 10. 06. 1994 dismissed the appeal of Bhanwar Singh and maintained the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner Bhanwar Singh. However, the appellate court acquitted the accused Hanuman Singh from the offence under Section 498a IPC. The accused-petitioner being aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, preferred this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the complainant himself very categorically stated that before marriage of the petitioner-accused with complainant's sister Raj Kanwar, the accused was already married. In view of the above, the case of the prosecution was that no prosecution under Section 498a IPC could have been entertained because of the simple reason that for launching any prosecution, Section 498a IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the victim is legally married woman to the accused. According to learned counsel for the petitioner-accused in view of the admitted fact that appellant was already married and his wife was alive then there cannot arise any question of lawful marriage of the petitioner with Raj Kanwar. Prosecution under Section 498a IPC can launched by only legally wedded wife against her husband and not be a lady whose marriage is not recognized by law. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon to judgment to the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered in the case of Ramnarayan & Ors. vs. State of MP (1), judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002 (1) WLC (SC) 409 Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the admissions of the prosecution witnesses to far as it relates to the marriage of the petitioner with another lady before the marriage of petitioner with Raj Kanwar. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. In this case, the complainant, in his written complaint dated 26. 05. 1987, stated that when he went to petitioner's house, he (accused) told complainant that he (accused) earlier contacted marriage with Rukmani. In his statement in court, Narayan Singh PW-1, complainant, stated that he came to know that Bhanwar Singh was already married (before the marriage with his sister Raj Kanwar ). In cross-examination, he stated that he has no knowledge whether Mooli Devi (his maternal aunt) had knowledge of the first marriage of Bhanwar Singh before his marriage with Raj Kanwar. The witness Ram Singh PW-2 in his cross-examination, stated that he heard that Bhanwar Singh was already married and now he has contacted third marriage at Ajmer. Smt. Raj Kanwar PW- 3 in her statement stated that her-in-laws and neighbours told that Bhanwar Singh was married to Rukmani and before marriage with Raj Kanwar he left Rukmani. She stated that she never talked with her husband on this topic. PW-5 Shiv Dayal stated that he heard that accused Bhanwar Singh contacted marriage three times. The witness PW-7 Mooli Devi stated in her statement that accused contacted second marriage with Raj Kanwar and he did so by committing fraud upon her (PW-7 Mooli Devi ). She further stated that she was not knowing about the accused first marriage before the marriage of accused with Raj Kanwar.
(3.) IN view of the above statement and the complaint Ex. P/1 it is clear that complainant as all the witnesses stated on oath only to the effect that they come to know subsequently that the accused was married, but from the entire evidence of all he witnesses, only inference can be drawn is that none of them had personal knowledge of petitioner's earlier marriage. All said is that they heard that petitioner was married before his marriage with Raj Kanwar victim. None of the witness was present at the time of solemnization of the marriage by the accused with other lady prior to solemnizing of the marriage with Smt. Raj Kanwar. Their evidence is only hear say. Their admission is only admission of their belief on the basis of information, which they received from others. Therefore, it is not a case of admission of marriage of the petitioner with Raj Kanwar by the witnesses, but it is a case of admission of the fact of hearing about the earlier marriage of the accused, prior to marriage with Raj Kanwar. The admission is required to be read as a whole as well as to the extent for which admission is there. Neither the complainant nor the witnesses ever admitted that there was any valid marriage of accused Bhanwar Singh with Rukmani. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the accused had legally wedded wife at the time of his marriage with Raj Kanwar, was not the defence of the accused at any time during the trial nor marriage of accused with Raj Kanwar was questioned by the accused while cross-examination of his wife Raj Kanwar and other prosecution witnesses. Apart from above, the accused himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. specifically denied his earlier marriage, before his marriage with Raj Kanwar. The marriage of the accused with Raj Kanwar is a fact in the personal knowledge of all the witnesses produced by the prosecution and particularly, in the knowledge of the PW-1 Narayan Singh, who is brother and Mooli Devi PW-7, who is maternal aunt of victim Raj Kumar and they stated on oath that the marriage of the accused was solemnized with Raj Kanwar in accordance with the Hindu rites in their presence. The fact of marriage of Raj Kanwar with accused Bhanwar singh has not been disputed by Bhanwar Singh himself. The accused if after admitting his marriage with Raj Kanwar wanted to question the validity and legality of the marriage with Raj Kanwar then it was the duty of the accused to prove that despite his contacting marriage with Raj Kanwar in accordance with Hindu rites, the marriage cannot be recognized as valid marriage as he was married at the time of solemnization of marriage with Raj Kanwar. ;