Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Kumari vs State And Ors on 3 September, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:38623]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 734/2023
Vinod Kumari, W/o Prem Kumar, B/c Meghwal, R/o
Aadarshnagar, P.s. Hanumangarh Town, Teh. And Dist.
Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State And Ors, Through Pp
2. Prem Kumar S/o Chandra Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o
Gogamedi, Teh. Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh
3. Sukhdev S/o Chandra Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Gogamedi,
Teh. Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh
4. Krishan S/o Chandra Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Gogamedi,
Teh. Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh
5. Rukhmani W/o Chandra Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o
Gogamedi, Teh. Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh
6. Banwari Lal S/o Chandra Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o
Gogamedi, Teh. Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh
7. Kamla W/o Mangu Ram, D/o Bhagirath, B/c Meghwal, R/o
Gogamedi, Teh. Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.S. Gharsana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
Mr. Manjeet Godara
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON ::: 16/07/2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON ::: 03/09/2025
REPORTABLE
BY THE COURT:-
1. The present criminal appeal has been instituted by the
appellant-complainant, Smt. Vinod Kumari, assailing the judgment
rendered by the learned appellate Court i.e. Special Judge (SC/ST
Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Hanumangarh in on
28.03.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.13/2017, whereby the
[2025:RJ-JD:38623] (2 of 7) [CRLAS-734/2023]
respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 494
and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned
judgment, the appellate Court set aside the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence earlier imposed by the learned
trial Court i.e. learned ACJM, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated
27.01.2017 passed in Criminal Original Case No.31/2001 wherein
Respondent No.2, Prem Kumar, and Respondent No.7 Kamla were
convicted for the offence of bigamy and sentenced to undergo two
years SI alongwith fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default to
further undergo three months SI; while Respondents No.3 to 6
were found guilty of abetment and were accordingly sentenced to
simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs. 15,000
each and in default to undergo one month's SI. Out of the total
compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-, a sum of Rs.30,000/- shall
be directed to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
minutely gone through the material available on record.
2.1. The factual matrix of the present case originates from the
marital alliance between the appellant and Respondent No.2,
which was solemnized nearly fifteen years prior to the initiation of
the complaint. The couple cohabited for a substantial period of
time; however, according to the appellant, she was subsequently
expelled from her matrimonial home nearly six years before the
institution of these proceedings. In the intervening period, she
was constrained to seek legal remedies by instituting criminal
proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal
[2025:RJ-JD:38623] (3 of 7) [CRLAS-734/2023]
Code, 1860, as well as maintenance proceedings under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2.2. The fulcrum of the present prosecution, however, rests upon
the accusation that during the continuance of this valid and
subsisting marriage, Respondent No.2 purportedly entered into
another matrimonial alliance with Respondent No.7. It is further
alleged that Respondents No.3 to 6, despite their knowledge of the
existing marital tie, not only acquiesced in but also facilitated and
participated in the solemnization of the said second marriage.
2.3. Upon the lodging of the complaint, the learned Magistrate
embarked upon the procedure mandated under Sections 200 and
202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, conducting a preliminary
inquiry to ascertain the veracity of the allegations. Having found
sufficient grounds to proceed, process was accordingly issued
against the accused persons. The matter was thereafter posted for
trial, wherein the prosecution adduced the testimony of four
witnesses in support of its case. Following the close of prosecution
evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC to
afford them an opportunity to explain the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them.
2.4. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court arrived
at the finding that the prosecution had successfully established its
case beyond reasonable doubt. On such determination,
Respondent No 2 and Respondent No.7 were held guilty of the
offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC, while Respondents No.3
to 6 were convicted for abetment of the said offence under Section
[2025:RJ-JD:38623] (4 of 7) [CRLAS-734/2023]
494 r.w. 109 IPC. The learned Trial Court accordingly imposed
sentences commensurate with the gravity of the offences as
proved.
2.5. The prosecution sought to fortify its case by contending that
advance information regarding the purported second marriage of
Respondent No.2 with Respondent No.7 had been conveyed to the
complainant party by Jagdish and Shankarlal. Significantly,
however, neither of these two alleged informants were produced
as a witness during the course of trial, thereby depriving the
prosecution of potentially material testimony.
2.6. Further infirmities surface in the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses themselves. The accounts regarding the
manner of travel to the supposed place of marriage are glaringly
inconsistent and mutually destructive. The appellant deposed that
she journeyed to the venue by passenger bus. P.W.2 Joruram, on
the other hand, claimed to have travelled in a jeep to Gogamedi,
notwithstanding that the prosecution's case was that the marriage
was solemnized at Ramgadh. P.W.3 Radheshyam asserted that he
travelled by train, whereas P.W.4 Arjun Ram deposed that he and
Radheshyam travelled together to Gogamedi by train--a place
geographically distinct from Ramgadh. These discrepancies are not
trivial; rather, they strike at the very root of the prosecution story,
undermining the credibility of the witnesses and eroding the
substratum of the case.
3. It is a settled proposition of law that to establish the offence
under Section 494 IPC, the prosecution must incontrovertibly
[2025:RJ-JD:38623] (5 of 7) [CRLAS-734/2023]
prove two indispensable ingredients: first, the existence of a valid
and subsisting marriage between the complainant and the accused
at the relevant time; and second, the performance of another
marriage by the accused with all essential ceremonies and
customary rites recognized under personal law, thereby rendering
the said marriage legally valid. It is equally well-established that
vague allegations of cohabitation, or assertions of the parties
living together as husband and wife, fall far short of the statutory
requirement under Section 494 IPC.
3.1. Measured against this rigorous standard, the prosecution's
case is found gravely wanting. Not only is there an absolute
dearth of evidence to prove the solemnization of the alleged
second marriage with the requisite ceremonies, but there is also
no cogent proof of subsequent cohabitation between Respondent
No.2 and Respondent No.7 as husband and wife. The testimonies
of the four prosecution witnesses are riddled with contradictions,
bereft of corroboration either from independent witnesses or
documentary material, and wholly unreliable. The inconsistencies
relating to the very place of marriage (Ramgadh and Gogamedi),
the time of occurrence, and the mode of travel render the
evidence inherently improbable and incapable of sustaining a
conviction.
3.2. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence dictates that
the burden of proof lies exclusively upon the prosecution, which
must establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Suspicion,
however grave, can never be a substitute for proof. In the present
[2025:RJ-JD:38623] (6 of 7) [CRLAS-734/2023]
case, the complainant's claim of having witnessed the alleged
marriage is palpably an afterthought, unsupported by her earlier
statements and uncorroborated by credible evidence.
3.3. Judicial precedent reinforces this conclusion. In Bhaurao
Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC
1564), the Supreme Court categorically held that unless the
second marriage is shown to have been performed with proper
ceremonies and due form, conviction under Section 494 IPC
cannot be sustained. Similarly, in Kanwal Ram v. Himachal
Pradesh Administration (AIR 1966 SC 614), it was held that
mere admissions or vague allegations are insufficient; the
prosecution must discharge its burden through concrete proof. The
principle was further elucidated in Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh
Chandra Ghosh (AIR 1971 SC 1153), where it was
underscored that the performance of essential ceremonies such as
saptapadi is indispensable, and mere cohabitation or social
recognition as husband and wife cannot substitute lawful
solemnization. This doctrine was reiterated in Lingari Obulamma
v. L. Venkata Reddy ((1979) 2 SCC 134).
Applying these binding authorities to the present factual
matrix, it is abundantly clear that the prosecution has signally
failed to establish that Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.7
underwent a valid marriage ceremony in accordance with law.
Neither documentary evidence nor credible oral testimony
substantiates the charge. The contradictions in the prosecution's
case are fatal and demolish its very foundation.
[2025:RJ-JD:38623] (7 of 7) [CRLAS-734/2023]
4. On a meticulous reappraisal of the evidence, the learned
Appellate Court rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Its reasoning is sound,
well-founded, and firmly rooted in settled principles of law. The
complainant's belated claim of being an eyewitness to the
ceremony is untenable and devoid of probative value. The
appellate court's findings are plausible, free from perversity, and
warrant no interference.
5. In light of the foregoing discussion and guided by the
authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this
Court is persuaded to affirm the view of the appellate court. The
prosecution has abjectly failed to discharge its burden of proof
with respect to the commission of offences under Sections 494
and 109 IPC. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by
the appellate court stands affirmed. The present appeal, being
devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed, and the record shall be
transmitted back to the court below forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI), J.
Mamta/69
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
