UNRAVELING THE KNOT OF BIGAMY:A JUDGMENT AGAINST VEXATIOUS LITIGATION

Case Title: Nitheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.

Case Number: SLP (Criminal) No(s). 8529 of 2019)

Dated On: 15th May,2024.

Quorum: Hon’ble justice B.r. Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta.

FACT OF THE CASE:

?The complainant- Mr. Reynar Lopez? married Ms. Lumina? as per the Christian ceremonies in St. Theresa’s Lisieux Church at Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala on 16th April, 2007. It is alleged that on 13th August, 2010, Ms. Lumina contracted marriage with Saneesh under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Marriage Officer, Nemom. And the appellants? are relatives and friends of Saneesh? and Ms. Lumina? and thus they too are responsible for the offence of bigamy committed by Ms. Lumina as they had the common intention to commit such offence.

LEGAL PROVISONS:

• Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 – Bigamy
• Section 34 of the IPC, 1860 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
• Section 109 of the IPC, 1860 – Abetment
• Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 – Altering charge
• Section 244 of the CrPC, 1973 – Evidence in inquiries

SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT:

Shri Kuriakose Varghese, learned counsel for the appellants urged that the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC are totally lacking in the case setup by the complainant.He pointed out from the record that four witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant by way of pre-charge evidence.Learned counsel urged that none of these witnesses have spoken about the presence of appellants Vimal Jacob and Flory Lopez at the time of marriage of Ms. Lumina and Saneesh .Learned counsel contended that in absence of any evidence except for the bald allegation to the effect that A-5, A-6 and A-7 were having knowledge regarding the previous marriage of Ms.Lumina with the complainant, they cannot be charged for the offences punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC.

SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT:

Mr. Alim Anvar learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. He urged that the appellants namely, S. Nitheen, P.R. Sreejith and H. Gireesh being the friends of Ms. Lumina and Saneesh participated in their bigamous marriage and stood as witnesses to the ceremony and thus, they are liable to be prosecuted for the offence of bigamy.It was further submitted that the appellants Flory Lopez and Vimal Jacob being blood relatives of Ms. Lumina were aware of her subsisting marriage with the complainant, but they took no steps whatsoever to prevent Ms. Lumina from contracting bigamous marriage with Saneesh and thus, they too are liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC. He thus, implored the Court to dismiss the appeals.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court of India rejected the proceedings against the appellants in a bigamy case, holding that there was no prima facie evidence to build their involvement in the alleged bigamous marriage. The court observed that the complainant had not sought prosecution of the appellants for abetting the second marriage and that the allegations against them were not clear. The court also mentioned that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 494 IPC were not fulfilled, and that the charge against the appellants was erroneous. The court allowed the appeals and quashed the proceedings against the appellants, while allowing the trial of the main accused to continue.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court’s decision to quash proceedings against the appellants in a bigamy case underscores the importance of sufficient evidence in criminal cases, ensuring that individuals are not wrongly accused and that justice is served.

WRITTEN BY: KOUSTAV GHOSH