High Court dismissed criminal revision against conviction and modified sentence in bigamy case, finding sufficient evidence of second marriage and noting appellate court's lenient sentencing.
Revision petition dismissed; conviction upheld; sentence modification affirmed; bail bond cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 454 of 2012
Binod Kumar Das @ Binod Das son of Mansu Das, resident of village Barkama, P.O. & P.S. Chandan Kiyari, District Bokaro.
… … Petitioner
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Through: Video Conferencing
08 /05.08.2021
1. Heard Mr. B. B. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.
3. The present criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 03.05.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No. 60/2010, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with modification of sentence.
4. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 484/2005 (T.R. No. 502/2010) for offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. However, the learned appellate court has reduced the sentence of the petitioner to simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days.
2
Arguments of the petitioner
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was already convicted for offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code against which Cr. Appeal No. 01/2008, was also dismissed and accordingly, the petitioner could not be again convicted this time, for offence under Section 494 of IPC in the present case.
6. The learned counsel has also submitted that the second marriage of the petitioner has not been legally proved, in as much as, the Pandit who had conducted the alleged second marriage of the petitioner was examined as C.W.-5 and stated in his evidence that there is a receipt in connection with the payment made to him for performing the marriage, but the said receipt has not been exhibited before the learned court below. The learned counsel has submitted that the essential documentary evidence having not been produced, the second marriage itself was not duly proved and this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned courts below while convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 494 of IPC. The learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity and accordingly cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Arguments of the opposite party-State
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite partyState, on the other hand, while opposing the submission of the petitioner, has submitted that the learned courts below have returned concurrent finding of facts upon appreciating the materials on record, on the basis of which, the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 494 of IPC. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court. He has also submitted that the evidence of the Pandit was not the solitary
3
evidence, rather there are other evidences on record, which have also been considered by the learned courts below while convicting the petitioner under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel submits that the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 494 of IPC is seven years and the appellate court has already taken a lenient view by reducing the sentence to a period of simple imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default clause.
8. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as the earlier conviction of the petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, the same has nothing to do with the present case, as no allegation for offence under Section 494 of IPC was involved in the said case. He submits that the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and offence under Section 494 of IPC are two distinct offences.
Findings of this Court
9. As per the complaint itself, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner on 27.04.1999 according to Hindu Rites and Customs and after that, her husband along with his family members started to demand dowry from the complainant and due to non-fulfillment of demand, they assaulted and tortured her. As such, the complainant had filed a case under Section 498-A of IPC against the petitioner and others. The complainant had also filed a case for maintenance in the court of learned Principal Judge, Bokaro. As the complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial house, she was resided with her parents. On 01.08.2005, the complainant was informed by her uncle that the petitioner is solemnizing second marriage at Charchkeshwar Temple and the petitioner is present with his father and brother. On this information, the complainant and his family members went there and saw that the marriage ceremony was going on in the temple. The
4
complainant and her family members tried to stop the marriage ceremony, but the accused persons abused the complainant and her family members and also assaulted them. It was the further case of the complainant that the marriage ceremony was being performed by one Panchanand Upadhyay (C.W.-5). The complainant also alleged that in the course of her protest, the petitioner had taken away her golden chain worth Rs. 18,000/-. Thereafter, she informed about the occurrence to the police, but no action was taken. She also submitted a written report to the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro on 06.08.2005 and in course of enquiry, the petitioner and his newly wedded wife Uma Devi accepted the fact about the marriage. When no action was taken by the Police, she filed the complaint on 15.09.2005.
10. Cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 379 and 494 of IPC was taken against the accused persons by the learned court below and summons were issued to the accused for facing the trial. Ultimately, charge under Section 323 of IPC was framed against all the accused persons, whereas additionally charges under Sections 494 and 379 of IPC were also framed only against the petitioner. Upon being explained the charges, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence was in total denial of the occurrence and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. However, they did not lead any defence evidence.
11. During the course of trial, the complainant examined altogether six witnesses. Out of them, C.W.2 is the complainant herself C.W.5 is Panchanand Upadhayay (the pandit ). So far as C.W.6 is concerned, he was not cross-examined in course of after charge evidence under Section 246 of Cr.P.C. and as such, his evidence was found to be of no consequence.
12. The complainant had also filed a certified copy of ordersheet dated 24.01.2006 passed in T.M.S. Case No. 66/2000 and
5
order-sheet dated 27.02.2006 passed in the same case, which were marked as Ext.-1 and 1/1 respectively. She had also filed a certified copy of the order dated 26.02.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2008, which was marked as Ext.-2. The complainant has fully supported the prosecution and she was also cross-examined from the side of the defence.
13. C.W.1 and C.W.3 were respectively the brother and uncle of the complainant, who have also supported the case of the complainant. They have stated that Rita Devi (the complainant) was married with the petitioner on 27.04.1999, but she was thrown out of her matrimonial house due to non-fulfillment of demand. They have also stated that the complainant had filed a case under Section 498-A of IPC and also a case of maintenance. They have clearly stated that on 01.08.2005, they went to Charchkeshwar Temple along with the complainant, where remarriage of the petitioner was being solemnized with the coaccused Uma Devi and when they objected to solemnization of re-marriage of the petitioner, then the accused persons assaulted them and the petitioner took away the golden chain of the complainant. These witnesses were also fully cross-examined from the side of the defence.
14. C.W.4 is said to be an independent witness, who has also supported the complainant’s case in her evidence. She has stated that on 01.08.2005, she along with the complainant and her family members went to Charchkeshwar Temple, where the petitioner was solemnizing his second marriage with one Uma Devi.
15. C.W.5 is the most important witness, so far as the second marriage of the petitioner is concerned. He was the Pandit , who had performed the ceremonies of the second marriage of the petitioner with Uma Devi. This witness has fully supported the prosecution case and in his evidence, he has stated that on
6
01.08.2005, he had solemnized the marriage of the petitioner with Uma Devi in Charchkeshwar Temple. He has also stated that the family members of the petitioner were also present there. He has again stated that in course of marriage, the complainant along with her parents came there and objected the re-marriage of the petitioner, then there was scuffling between the parties and the petitioner took away the golden chain of the complainant. This witness has stated that he has been working as a Pandit to get worship done in the temple since last 30-35 years. He has stated that although there is no register in the temple to maintain regarding the date and names of the person whose marriage was solemnized in the temple, but there is a receipt in which their name has been mentioned. He has stated that he can only identify the bridegroom, but there is difficulty in identifying the other accused persons. He has also admitted that the counterfoil of the receipt is still in the temple and he had solemnized only this marriage on that particular date. The learned trial court was of the view that it was crystal clear that this witness had solemnized re-marriage of the petitioner with Uma Devi in Charchkeshwar Temple, for which a fee was paid by the accused persons.
16. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidences, the learned trial court has also appreciated the documentary evidences. The complainant had filed a certified of order-sheet passed in T.M.S. No. 66/2000, which was marked as Ext.-1, in which, the learned Principal Judge, Bokaro has mentioned in his order dated 24.01.2006 that the petitioner has admitted before him that he had solemnized second marriage and on that basis the complainant-Rita Devi was not ready to live with him, due to which, the attempt of settling the dispute in between the parties could not take place. The learned trial court observed that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has solemnized his second
7
marriage with Uma Devi in Charchkeshwar Temple on 01.08.2005.
17. With this background and considering the evidences on record, the learned trial court was of the view that the complainant has been able to prove the case against the petitioner for offence under Section 494 of IPC beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and accordingly, convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 494 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months under the same Section. However, the learned trial court was of the view that there was no sufficient evidence against the accused persons to hold guilty them for offence under Section 323 and 379 of IPC and accordingly acquitted all the accused including the petitioner for offence under Section 323 and 379 of IPC.
18. So far as the learned appellate court is concerned, it also considered all the materials available on record and was of the view that there was sufficient evidence to safely conclude that the petitioner performed second marriage with Uma Devi during the subsistence of his first marriage and accordingly offence under Section 494 of IPC was proved. However, the learned appellate court modified the sentence of the petitioner to simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 494 of IPC and in default payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo further imprisonment of 15 days.
19. This Court finds that the learned courts below have considered the evidences on record meticulously, particularly the evidence of C.W.5 (the pandit ) who had solemnized the second marriage of the petitioner with Uma Devi. The learned courts below have also scrutinized the documentary evidences,
8
on the basis of which, it stood admitted that the petitioner had performed second marriage. This Court is of the considered view that there were sufficient materials on record to prove the factum of second marriage of the petitioner with one Uma Devi. Further, it is not in dispute that the complainant was the first wife of the petitioner and accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 494 of IPC. There is no scope for re-appreciation of materials on record and coming to a different finding in revisional jurisdiction in absence of any perversity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments.
20. So far as the sentence is concerned, this Court finds that the learned appellate court has already taken a lenient view in the matter and has reduced the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to one-year simple imprisonment.
21. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the learned courts below and impugned order of sentence passed by the learned appellate court and accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed.
22. Bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.
23. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
24. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed.
25. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court concerned.
26. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘E-mail/FAX’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction for bigamy under Section 494 IPC was legally sustainable and required interference in criminal revision.
Whether the sentence modification by the appellate court warrants revisional interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Binod Kumar Das @ Binod Das
The State of Jharkhand
Reeta Devi
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
