Kanwal Ram And Ors. VS. The Himachal Pradesh Admn.

Summary

---

K, a woman, was alleged to have married a second time in contravention 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, 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 purpose of proving an offence of bigamy or adultery. [541 P-G]

Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, [1965] 2

S.C.R. 837 relied on Empress v. Pitambur Singh, (1880) I.L.R. 5 Cal. 566, Empress v. Kallu, (1882) I.L.R. 5 All. 233 and Marria v.

Miller, 4 Burr 2057-98 E.R. 73, referred to.

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

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Kanwal Ram And Ors. VS. The Himachal Pradesh Admn.

PETITIONER: KANWAL RAM AND ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMN.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/08/1965

BENCH: SARKAR, A.K.

BENCH: SARKAR, A.K.

DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

RAMASWAMI, V.

CITATION: 1966 AIR 614 1966 SCR (1) 539

CITATOR INFO : D 1971 SC1153 (17,20,23)

R 1979 SC 713 (6)

ACT: Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 494, 109-Bigamy and abetment thereof-Admission of accused Whether sufficient proof o...

See the full content of this document

---