MEHTA, J - (1.) MST. Gyan Kaur is admittedly the married wife of the respondent Manohar Singh. She was married to him sometime in the year 1958. The married couple lived in a peaceable and amicable manner for about 3-1/2 years. Thereafter relations between the two got stained, as MST. Gyan Kaur by that time did not give birth to any child. It is alleged that Manohar Singh started maltreating his wife. He eventually turned her out of his house somewhere in the year 1962. Manohar Singh's father Banta Singh then planned for the second marriage of his son, with MST. Darshan Kaur, daughter of Jaband Singh. When Gyan Kaur and her father Jagat Singh came to know of this device, they tried to dissuade Manohar Singh and Banta Singh not to implement their wishes. Both of them, however, did not pay any heed to this persuasion or advice. Jagat Singh and Ratan Singh also went to MST. Darshan Kaur and told her that as Manohar Singh had already been married with Gyan Kaur, she must not agree to marry Manohar Singh. Despite all these attempts, marriage of MST Darshan Kaur was to be performed with Manohar Singh on November 29, 1963, at Chak 43 R. B. Having come to know of this fact, Gyan Kaur despatched telegrams to the authorities concerned, including the local police, asking them to stop the performance of marriage. The Superintendent of Police, Ganganagar, sent police force along with Jagat Singh, father of Gyan Kaur and other persons to prevent celebration of the marriage. When the police reached Chak 43 R. B. , the marriage of Manohar Singh with Darshan Kaur had already been performed according to the Sikh customs. Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 along with others participated in the marriage celebrations. A complaint was lodged in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur, on December 2, 1963, against the respondents, Manohar Singh, Banta Singh, Suba Singh, Jaband Singh and others. Thereupon, a case was registered under sec. 494, IPC against Manohar Singh and under sec. 494, read with sec. 109, C. P. C. against Banta Singh, Suba Singh, Mela Singh and Jaband Singh. Mela Singh, died in the course of trial. After the marriage Banta Singh executed a Tamlik Nama (gift deed] and got it registered on January 21, 1964, setting apart 24-1/2 Bighas of land, valued at Rs. 10,000/- for MST. Gyan Kaur's maintenance. In the document it was mentioned that as no issue was born to MST. Gyan Kaur, Manohar Singh took another wife in the marriage with the consent of Gyan Kaur and that Banta Singh felt duty bound to maintain his daughter-in-law. On having come to know of the complaint, Banta Singh got the gift deed cancelled. At the trial the defence of the accused was that Darshan Kaur was not married to Manohar Singh, but she was married to Amarjeet Singh, brother of Manohar Singh. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate held that the marriage of Manohar Singh with Darshan Kaur has not been proved beyond doubt and, therefore, he acquitted Manohar Singh of the offence under sec. 491 IPC and the rest of the accused under sec. 494, read with sec. 109 IPC. Hence this appeal.
(2.) CONTENTION of learned counsel for the appellant is that the second marriage of Manohar Singh with Darshan Kaur has been proved satisfactorily and that the trial court has wrongly held that the performance of the alleged marriage is not immune from doubt. Learned counsel for the side opposite, on the other hand, argued that there is no sufficient evidence to show that the marriage ceremony according to the customs of the community was performed and as such the finding of the court below hardly warrants any interference. In this case the appellant has examined certain material witnesses. P. W. 1 Mst. Gyan Kaur states that she was not an eye-witness to the performance of the second marriage. Ratan Singh P. W. 2, has deposed that when he went to Chak 43 R. B. , along with the police force, marriage of Manohar Singh with Darshan Kaur had already been performed. That shows that Ratan Singh also did not witness the marriage ceremony. Mahendra Singh, P. W. 4, also went along with the police force to Chak 43 R. B. He has positively stated that the actual marriage ceremony was not performed in his presence. Jogendra Singh was a police constable, stationed at the police station, Padampur. He went to the spot in compliance with the order of the Superintendent of Police Ganganagar. He has pointedly said that when he reached the spot, the marriage ceremony became a fiet accompli. Jogendra Singh, P. W. 5, has denied to have seen the marriage with his own eyes. Gurumukh Singh, P. W. 7, was also not present on the spot at the time of the solemnisation of the marriage. P. W. 8 Naru Singh, Head Constable, Police Station Padampur, has deposed that when he reached the spot, the marriage of Manohar Singh with Darshan Kaur became an accomplished fact. The above witnesses, examined on behalf of the complainant, have not specifically testified whether the marriage between Manohar Singh and Darshan Kaur was actually solemnised in their presence. They are not the witnesses to the performance of essential ceremonies required to be performed for a valid marriage. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon document Ex. P. 1, dated January 21, 1964. In that document it is mentioned that since Manohar Singh has taken another wife in marriage, land measuring 24-1/2 Bighas was allotted to Gyan Kaur, as a gift, for her maintenance. This deed is alleged to have been executed by Banta Singh. Admission of Banta Singh in Ex. P. 1 is not binding upon Manohar Singh and other accused. Moreover in this document it is not mentioned that Manohar Singh had been married to Mst. Darshan Kaur. Therefore, from mere mention of the fact that Man®har Singh had been married second time in Ex. P. 1, it cannot be inferred that he was married to Darshan Kaur according to the Sikh rites. I am unable, therefore, to think that Ex. P. 1 affords any assistance towards proving Darshan Kaur's marriage with Manohar Singh. It is a settled law that unless a marriage is celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form, it cannot be said to be solemnised. To prove valid marriage it is essential to show that all the necessary ceremonies have been performed and those too in due form. Merely going through certain formalities with intent that the parties be taken to be married will not make the ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by any established custom. Prima facie the expression "whoever. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . marriage" in sec. 494, I. P. C. must mean, "'whoever marries and whose marriage is valid one. " If the marriage is not a valid marriage, it is not a marriage in the eye of law and in that case sec. 494, IPC, would not be applicable vide Bhaurao vs. State of Maharashtra (1 ). It has been held in Kanwal Ram vs. H. P. Administration (2) that in a bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact that is to say, the essential ceremonies constituting it, must be proved. Admission of marriage by one of the accused is not evidence of it for the purpose of proving marriage in an adultery or bigamy case: See Empress vs. Pitambur Singh{3) and Archibald's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 35th Edn, Arts. 3796 and 3781. In the instant case the essential ceremonies required for the solemnisation of the marriage have not been proved. The documentary evidence Ex. P. 2, alleged to be the admission of Banta Singh is also no evidence for the purpose of proving marriage merely by evidence of acknowledgment or cohabitation or reputation is insufficient : vide Morris vs. Miller (4 ). In this view of the matter, the finding of the trial court hardly warrants any interference. In the result, the appeal of Mst. Gyan Kaur stands dismissed. . ;