Shri Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. of 1987.
(In SLP 886/84)
(In SLP 886/84)
Petitioner: Shri Ram
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. of 1987.
(In SLP 886/84)
(In SLP 886/84)
Judges: A.P.SEN, B.C.RAY & M.N.VENKATACHALIAH,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 05, 1987
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW:
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 496 – Factum of second marriage – Burden of proof on the prosecution – Revision before High Court raises questions requiring consideration on merits – High Court to decide the case afresh.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted. Argument heard.
2. We find it rather difficult to sustain the order passed by the High Court dismissing the revision in limine. The High Court failed to appreciate that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind to the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under s. 496 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court was clearly in error in observing that’ there was ample evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellant under s.496′ for which there is no basis whatever. The burden was on the prosecution to prove the factum of second marriage. The learned Sessions Judge in his perfunctory judgment discarded the testimony of PW 1 Smt. Kalavati as mere hearsay and solely relied upon the panchnama, Exh. P-1, in proof of the fact of second marriage. There is no discussion at all as to the evidentiary value of the alleged panchnama. In the premises, we are satisfied that the revision before the High Court does raise questions which deserved a consideration on merits, and the High Court ought not to have dismissed the revision summarily.
3. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside and the High Court will hear and decide the revision afresh on the merits after notice to the parties.
4. The appellant is allowed to withdraw the sum of Rs. 1500 deposited by him towards the costs of respondent no.2 Smt. Kalavati inasmuch as she has not entered appearance.
1. Special leave granted. Argument heard.
2. We find it rather difficult to sustain the order passed by the High Court dismissing the revision in limine. The High Court failed to appreciate that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind to the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under s. 496 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court was clearly in error in observing that’ there was ample evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellant under s.496′ for which there is no basis whatever. The burden was on the prosecution to prove the factum of second marriage. The learned Sessions Judge in his perfunctory judgment discarded the testimony of PW 1 Smt. Kalavati as mere hearsay and solely relied upon the panchnama, Exh. P-1, in proof of the fact of second marriage. There is no discussion at all as to the evidentiary value of the alleged panchnama. In the premises, we are satisfied that the revision before the High Court does raise questions which deserved a consideration on merits, and the High Court ought not to have dismissed the revision summarily.
3. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside and the High Court will hear and decide the revision afresh on the merits after notice to the parties.
4. The appellant is allowed to withdraw the sum of Rs. 1500 deposited by him towards the costs of respondent no.2 Smt. Kalavati inasmuch as she has not entered appearance.
