Allowed¶63

Kanwal Ram and Ors. v. the Himachal Pradesh Admn.

Supreme Court19 Aug 19651965 INSC 159 · [1966] 1 S.C.R. 5391965 INSC 159

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kanwal Ram v. The Himachal Pradesh Admn.; Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1963; Supreme Court of India; decided August 19, 1965; Sarkar J.; bigamy; s. 494 IPC; s. 109 IPC abetment; Hindu Marriage Act 1955; customary Praina marriage; Kubja; Sadh Ram; proof of second marriage; marriage ceremonies must be proved; admission of marriage by accused not evidence; sexual relationship statement; restitution of conjugal rights written statement; Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra [1965] 2 SCR 837 relied on; Empress v. Pitambur Singh; Empress v. Kallu; Morris v. Miller; R. v. Robinson distinguished; R. v. Allen; convictions set aside; appeal allowed; (1966) 1 SCR 539.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; conviction of the appellants set aside and their bail bonds cancelled. ¶63

Kanwal Ram and Ors. versus the Himachal Pradesh… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Supreme Court (1966)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; conviction of the appellants set aside and their bail bonds cancelled.

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the second marriage between Kubja and Kanwal Ram, said to have been performed in September 1955 according to the customary Praina form during the subsistence of Kubja's marriage with Sadh Ram, was proved. +2 more

¶34

Court's answer

A marriage is not proved unless the essential ceremonies required for its solemnisation are proved to have been performed, as this Court held in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande; the contention that the evidence sufficed is rejected.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The evidence of the only witness to the marriage ceremonies showed that the essential ceremonies had not been performed (he mentioned only the suhag being brought and Hira Nand acting as Prainu), so that evidence cannot justify the conviction.

¶47

Key takeaways

In a bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact, that is to say, the ceremonies constituting it, must be proved.ratio¶49
Kanwal Ram's statement that he had sexual relationship with Kubja, even if true, would not at all prove his marriage with her.ratio¶49
The written statement of Kubja, Hira Nand and Hiroo admitting the second marriage is not evidence of the marriage against Kanwal Ram and Seesia who did not make it, nor even against Kubja: treated as an admission the entire document read as a whole would prove dissolution of the first marriage, and in law such an admission is not evidence of the fact of the second marriage having taken place; it affords no assistance towards proving the marriage.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1963 (Supreme Court of India, August 19, 1965; judgment delivered by Sarkar J., with Raghubar Dayal and V. Ramaswami JJ.). Bigamy and abetment — ss. 494 and 109 IPC; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Kubja, allegedly married a second time to Kanwal Ram in September 1955 by the customary 'Praina' form during the subsistence of her marriage with Sadh Ram, and Kanwal Ram were convicted under s. 494 IPC, and relatives Hira Nand and Seesia for abetment (s. 109); the trial court had acquitted, but the Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh convicted relying on incomplete ceremony-evidence and certain admissions. HELD: in a bigamy case the second marriage has to be proved as a fact — the necessary ceremonies must be proved to have been performed; admission of marriage by the accused is not evidence of it for proving bigamy or adultery. The sole ceremony-witness proved only the offering of 'suhag' and Hira Nand acting as Prainu, omitting compulsory rites; Kanwal Ram's admitted sexual relations proved nothing; the written statement admitting the marriage bound none who did not make it and, read whole, asserted dissolution of the first marriage. R. v. Robinson distinguished; Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande relied on. Appeal allowed; convictions set aside and bail bonds cancelled.

539

,..

KANWAL RAM AND ORS.

¶5

¶6

THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMN.

¶7

August 19, 1965

¶8

¶9

[A. K. SARKAR, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.)

¶10

Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 494, 109-Bigamy and abet- 111ent thereof-Ad111ission of accused 1vhether sufficient proof of second marriage.

¶11

¶12

K, a woman, was alleged to have married a second time in contravenc tion of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 and was found guilty, alongwith the alleged second husband, of an offence under s. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Two of her relatives were convicted for abetment of the above offence. The Trial Court as well as the judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh held that the evidence of the only witness who was produced to prove the second marriage, fell short of proving it. But the Judicial Commissioner convicted the appellants on certain admissions of K and the alleged second husband. In appeal to this Court,

¶13

¶14

HELD : In a bigamy case the second marriage has to be proved as a fact. The necessary ceremonies must be proved to have been performed. Admission of marriage by the accused is not evidence of it for the pur- pose of proving an offence of bigamy or adultery. [541 F-0]

¶15

Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, [1965] 2 S.C.R. 83 7. relied on.

¶16

¶17

Empress v. Pitambur Singh, (1880) I.L.R. 5 Cal. 566, EmpreS< v. Kallu, (1882) LLR. 5 All. 233 and Morr;.. v. Miller, 4 Burr 2057-98 RR. 73, referred to.

¶18

R. v. Robinson, ( 1938) 1 A.E.R. 301. <listinguished.

¶19

. ~

¶20

.,,

¶21

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No . 167 of 1963 .

¶22

Appeal by special leave froin the judgment and order dated July 31, 1963, of the Judicial Commissioner's Court Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1963.

¶23

¶24

S. C. Agarwala, R. K. Garg and D. P. Singh, for the appellants.

¶25

K. L. Hathi and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent.

¶26

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶27

Sarkar J. This appeal arises out of a conviction for bigamy

¶28

and for the abetment of it under ss. 194 and 109 of the Indian

¶29

B Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted the accused persons but on appeal the Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh convicted them. Hence this appeal.

¶30

(1966) I S.C.R.

¶31

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶32

540

¶33

Originally four persons were charged, namely, Kubja the bride, Kanwal Ram the bridegroom, Hira Nand and Scesia both relations of the bride, the latter two having been charged under s. 494 read with s. 109 for abetmcnt of the offence of bigamy committed by the two first mentioned accused. The charges were framed on the complaint of Sadh Ram to whom Kubja had been earlier married. The complainant had also implicated Hiroo, the mother of Kubja but she was discharged by the magistrate. Hira Nand died pending the appeal in this Court.

¶34

Sadh Ram was married to Kubja sometime in 1940-41. The marriage between the appellant Kanwal Ram and Kubja is said to have taken place in September I 955. By this time the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had come into force and it prohibited the marriage of a Hindu during the lifetime of his or her spouse. The parties belong to a village in Himachal Pradesh among whom a customary form of marriage called Praina, is recognised. Both the marriages were performed according to that form. The marriage of Kubja with Sadh Ram though originally challenged is now accepted. The only question is whether the second marri· age of Kubja, that is to say, between Kubja and Kanwal Ram, has been proved.

¶35

The evidence would show that for a marriage in this form the following ceremonies arc essential. First some agnatic relation of the bridegroom goes to the bride's house and offers her "suhag". Thereafter, a relation of the bride who is called Prainu, brings her to the house of the bridegroom. There at the door of the house of the bridegroom coins arc put in a pot and then Puja and Katha (reading of holy scriptures) are held. The bride then picks up the pot and takes that to the family hearth and bows there. Then she makes obeisance to the father-in-law and the mother-inlaw and other ciders in the family. Lastly, with feasting the cer1monies end. The complainant Sadh Ram himself admitted that puja at the cntracc and bowing at the hearth by the bride after she had picked up the pot were compulsory ceremonies. He added, "If any one of these ceremonies is not performed, then the marriage is not complete." ·.

¶36

Now all that the only witness who spoke about the ceremonies observed at the marriage of Kubja and Kanwal Ram said was that See.sia had brought the suhag and Hira Nand acted as Prainu. He does not mention any of the other ceremonies to which we have earlier referred.

•

KANWAL RAM v. H.P. ADMN. (Sarkar, J.)

¶45

541

¶46

•

¶47

A It was contended for the appellants that this evidence was not enough to show that the marriage of Kubja and Kanwal Ram can be said to have been performed. We think this contention is justified. In Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. The State of Maharashtra(') this Court held that a marriage is not proved unless the essential ceremonies required for its solemnisation are proved to B have been performed. The evidence of the witness called to prove the marriage ceremonies, showed that the essential ceremonies had not been performed. So that evidence cannot justify the conviction. The trial Court also took the same view. The learned Judicial Commissioner does not seem to have taken a different view.

¶48

¶49

The learned Judicial Commissioner, however, thought that apart from the evidence about the marriage ceremonies earlier mentioned there was other evidence which would prove the second marriage. He first referred to a statement by the appellant Kanwal D Ram that he had sexual relationship with Kubja. We are entirely unable to agree that this, even if true, would at all prove his marriage with Kubja. Then the learned Judicial Commissioner relied on a statement filed by Kubja, Hira Nand and Hiroo in answer to an application for restitution of conjugal rights filed by Sadh Ram against Kubja and others, in which it was stated that Kubja married E Kanwal Ram after her marriage with Sadh Ram had been dissolved. Now the statement adffiitting the second marriage by these persons is certainly not evidence of the marriage so far as Kanwal Ram and Seesia are concerned; they did not make it. Nor do we think, it is evidence of the marriage even as against Kubja. First, treated as an admission, the entire document has to be read as a whole and F that would prove the dissolution of the first marriage of Kubja which would make the second marriage innocent. Secondly, it is clear that in law such admission is not evidence of the fact of the second marriage having taken place. In a bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact, that is to say, the ceremonies constituting it, must be proved: Empress v. Pitambur Singh(² ), Empress v. G Kal/u(³ ), Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice (35th ed.) Art. 3796. In Kallu's(⁸ ) case and in Morris v. Mill er(') it has been held that admission of marriage by the accus. ed is not evidence of it for the purpose of proving marriage in an adultry or bigamy case : see also Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice (35th ed.) Art. 3781. We are unable,

¶50

¶51

(I) (1965] 2 S.C.R. 837.

¶52

(2) (1880] I.L.R. 5 Cal. 566. (4) 4 Burr 2057 : 98 E.R. 73.

¶53

(S) [1882] I.LR. 5 All. 233.

¶54

(1966) 1 S.C.R.

¶55

542

¶56

SUPllEMB COUJl.T RBPOl.TS

¶57

therefore, to think that the written statement of Kubja affords any assistance towards proving her marriage with Kanwal Ram.

¶58

¶59

Learned counsel for the respondent state drew our attention to R. v. Robinson(') in support of his contention that it is not necessary to prove that all the ceremonies required for the particular form of marriage had been observed. We do not think the case B supports that proposition. There the second marriage had been performed according to a Scottish custom observing all the necessary formalities. It appeared however that in order to be able to contract a marriage in that form one of the parties to it had to reside in Scotland for twenty-one days which none of the parties to the second marriage in that case had done. It was, therefore, held c that the marriage was not valid and the decision was that this invalidity of the marriage did not affect the liability for bigamy. It was said that the validity of the second marriage did not signify. The judgment pointed out that the previous marriage always rendered the second marriage invalid. Reference was made there to R. V. A lien (² ) for the proposition that the contracting of a second D marriage in an offence of bigamy meant only going through the form and ceremony of marriage with another person. It was there found that the form adopted by the parties was clearly recognised by law as capable of producing a valid marriage. This form having been observed, the court upheld the conviction for bigamy though the marriage turned out to be invalid by reason of the absence of E the necessary condition precedent as to residence for twenty-one days in Scotland. This case does not show that if the fom1alities required to create a valid marriage had not been observed. a conviction would have resulted. Indeed in Lokhande's Cll.'e(¹ ) Ibis Court h~ held to the contrary.

•

•

We, therefore, think that the appeal must be allowed and order accordingly. The conviction of the appellants is set a~ide and their bait bonds cancelled.

¶64

Appeal allowed.

¶65

(I) (t938) I All. E.R. 301. (2) (1872) LR. t C.C.R. 367. (3) (t96S) 3 S.C.R. 837.

Kanwal Ram and Ors. v. the Himachal Pradesh Admn.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanwal Ram and Ors. v. the Himachal Pradesh Admn.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Matukdhari Singh and Others versus Janardan Prasad

Mahant Kaushalya Das versus State of Madras

Baijnath Gupta and Others versus the State of Madhya Pradesh

Martin Burn Ltd. versus the Corporation of Calcutta

P. C. Gulati versus Lajya Ram Kapur and Others

Bharat Singh and Anr. versus Bhagirathi