Ramchandra Laxman Kamble Vs Shobha Ramchandra Kamble and Anr on 21 Dec 2018

Posted on May 29, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Bombay High Court held that if/when the wife gives up or relinquishes her right to claim maintenance at any time in the future through an agreement, such agreement is not enforceable since such an agreement is opposed to public policy.

Submissions from Paras 7-8,

7. Mr. Chavan submits that irrespective of pending Miscellaneous Application No.229 of 2012, and the so called consent decree, any agreement for waiver to receive maintenance is void, since, it is opposed to public policy. He submits that there can be no agreement in derogation of the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., since, such provisions have been designed as a matter of public policy to protect against destitution and vagrancy.
8. Mr. Chavan relies upon several decisions to point out that even assuming that right to claim maintenance was voluntarily given up by the wife, that by itself does not bar the wife from seeking maintenance, provided the circumstances prescribed in Section 125 of Cr.P.C. stands fulfilled. For these reasons, Mr. Chavan submits that there is absolutely no error in the impugned orders and this petition may, therefore, be dismissed.

From Paras 12-13,

12. The consent decrees made by the courts are in effect of nothing but contracts with the seal of the court super-added to them. Accordingly, if the term of the contract is itself opposed to public policy then, such term, is void and unenforceable. If the term is severable then, only the term can be declared as void. If the term is not severable, then, perhaps, the entire contract may fall.
13. There are several rulings, which take the view that an agreement, in which the wife gives up or relinquishes her right to claim maintenance at any time in the future, is opposed to public policy and, therefore, such an agreement, even if voluntarily entered, is not enforceable. The two courts in the present case have basically relied upon such rulings and held that even if it is assumed that the parties had voluntarily agreed to give up their time to claim maintenance from each other, such agreement is opposed to public policy and, therefore, the same is not enforceable, or the same does not bar the maintainability of an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. There is no jurisdictional error in the view taken by these two courts so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Ramchandra Laxman Kamble Vs Shobha Ramchandra Kamble and Anr on 21 Dec 2018

Citations : [2018 SCC ONLINE BOM 7039], [2019 HLR 1 404]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54396962/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c23adc49eff4309994e4f52

https://www.myrights.in/2020/07/ramchandra-laxman-kamble-vs-shobha.html

Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022

Posted on May 20, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court as follows,

From Para 52,

52. In view of the above discussion, the three questions raised in this appeal are answered as under:
“(i) Whether the consideration of Domestic Incidence Report is mandatory before initiating the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in order to invoke substantive provisions of Sections 18 to 20 and 22 of the said Act?” It is held that Section 12 does not make it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order under the D.V. Act. It is clarified that even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report, a Magistrate is empowered to pass both ex parte or interim as well as a final order under the provisions of the D.V. Act.
“(ii) Whether it is mandatory for the aggrieved person to reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levied at the point of commission of violence?” It is held that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person, when she is related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family, to actually reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of commission of domestic violence. If a woman has the right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the D.V. Act and such a woman becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence, she can seek reliefs under the provisions of D.V. Act including enforcement of her right to live in a shared household.
“(iii) Whether there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed?” It is held that there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed vis-à-vis allegation of domestic violence. However, it is not necessary that at the time of filing of an application by an aggrieved person, the domestic relationship should be subsisting. In other words, even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.

Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022

Citations : [2022 SCC ONLINE SC 607]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85317640/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/627eb23ab50db90fd1943198

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/prabha-tyagi-vs-kamlesh-devi

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/05/18/right-residence-shared-household-actual-residence-domestic-violence-subsisting-domestic-relationship-supreme-court-india-judgments-legal-law-research-updates-news/

This decision (with respect to shared householding requirement in DV cases) overrules decision by Andhra Pradesh High Court here.

Index of DV Cases here.

Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt Director and Ors on 11 Aug 2010

Posted on May 15, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Delhi High Court had issued certain guidelines to be followed for issuing Look Out Circulars.

A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.
B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing I.O or should surrender the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.
D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts’ jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs.

Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt Director and Ors on 11 Aug 2010

Citations : [2010 JCC 4 2401], [2010 ILR DEL 6 706], [2010 DMC 2 666], [2010 CCR 4 134], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 2699]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26846768/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea8d9d607dba371ebca94a

Index of judgments about Look Out Circular Notices is here.

Jagannath Verma and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 23 Sep 2014

Posted on May 1, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full bench of Allahabad High Court held that, an order of the magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation is not an interlocutory order. Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397′

In view of the discussion above and for the reasons which we have furnished, we have come to the following conclusion:
(i) Before the Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas, the controversy was whether a direction to the police to register a First Information Report in regard to a case involving a cognizable offence and for investigation is open to revision at the instance of a person suspected of having committed a crime against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued. Such an order was held to be interlocutory in nature and, therefore, to attract the bar under sub-section (2) of Section 397. The decision in Father Thomas does not decide the issue as to whether the rejection of an application under Section 156 (3) would be amenable to a revision under Section 397 by the complainant or the informant whose application has
been rejected;
(ii) An order of the magistrate rejecting an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code for the registration of a case by the police and for investigation is not an interlocutory order. Such an order is amenable to the remedy of a criminal revision under Section 397; and
(iii) In proceedings in revision under Section 397, the prospective accused or, as the case may be, the person who is suspected of having committed the crime is entitled to an opportunity of being heard before a decision is taken in the criminal revision.

Jagannath Verma and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 23 Sep 2014

Citations : [2015 ALLMR CRI 129], [2014 JIC 3 930], [2015 ALLCC 88 1], [2014 UPLBEC 4 2665], [2014 KLT SN 4 109], [2014 CTC 6 353], [2014 AIR ALL 214], [2014 ADJ 8 439], [2015 CCR ALL 2 59], [2015 RCR CRIMINAL 1 414], [2014 SCC ONLINE ALL 11859], [2014 MWN CRI 3 161], [2014 ALL LJ 6 405]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128706736/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49301607dba348f003b58

Ramkripal Charmakar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 19 Mar 2007

Posted on May 1, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Apex Court explained about offence of rape and the necessary ingredients to make out a case u/s 376 IPC.

Coming to the question as to whether Section 354 of the Act has any application, it is to be noted that the provision makes penal the assault or use of criminal force to a woman to outrage her modesty. The essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC are:
(a) That the assault must be on a woman.
(b) That the accused must have used criminal force on her.
(c) That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.
What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined in IPC. The essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this Section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman; and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object. As indicated above, the word ’modesty’ is not defined in IPC. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (Third Edn.) defines the word ’modesty’ in relation to woman as follows:
“Decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lower; Shame-fast; Scrupulously chast.”
Modesty is defined as the quality of being modest;and in relation to woman, “womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct.” It is the reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions. As observed by Justice Patterson in Rex v. James Llyod (1876) 7 C&P 817 in order to find the accused guilty of an assault with intent to commit a rape, court must be satisfied that the accused, when he laid hold of the prosecutrix, not only desired to gratify his passions upon her person but that he intended to do so at all events, and notwithstanding any resistance on her part. The point of distinction between an offence of attempt to commit rape
and to commit indecent assault is that there should be some action on the part of the accused which would show that he was just going to have sexual connection with her.

And finally,

A culprit first intends to commit the offence, then makes preparation for committing it and thereafter attempts to commit the offence. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence; if he fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence. Attempt to commit an offence can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is a step towards the commission of the offence. The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence. The word ’attempt’ is not itself defined, and must, therefore, be taken in its ordinary meaning. This is exactly what the provisions of Section 511 require. An attempt to commit a crime is to be distinguished from an intention to commit it; and from preparation made for its commission. Mere intention to commit an offence, not followed by any act, cannot constitute an offence. The will is not to be taken for the deed unless there be some external act which shows that progress has been made in the direction of it, or towards maturing and effecting it. Intention is the direction of conduct towards the object chosen upon considering the motives which suggest the choice. Preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence. It differs widely from attempt which is the direct movement towards the commission after preparations are made. Preparation to commit an offence is punishable only when the preparation is to commit offences under Section 122 (waging war against the Government of India) and Section 399 (preparation to commit dacoity). The dividing line between a mere preparation and an attempt is sometimes thin and has to be decided on the facts of each case. There is a greater degree of determination in attempt as compared with preparation.
An attempt to commit an offence is an act, or a series of acts, which leads inevitably to the commission of the offence, unless something, which the doer of the act neither foresaw nor intended, happens to prevent this. An attempt may be described to be an act done in part execution of a criminal design, amounting to more than mere preparation, but falling short of actual consummation, and, possessing, except for failure to consummate, all the elements of the substantive crime. In other words, an attempt consists in it the intent to commit a crime, falling short of, its actual commission or consummation/completion. It may consequently be defined as that which if not prevented would have resulted in the full consummation of the act attempted. The illustrations given in Section 511 clearly show the legislative intention to make a difference between the cases of a mere preparation and an attempt.
The sine qua non of the offence of rape is penetration, and not ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape. Definition of “rape” as contained in Section 375 IPC refers to “sexual intercourse” and the Explanation appended to the Section provides that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Intercourse means sexual connection. In the instant case that connection has been clearly established. Courts below were perfectly justified in their view.

Ramkripal Charmakar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 19 Mar 2007

Citations : [2007 SCC 11 265], [2007 AIR SC 0 2198], [2007 ALD CRI 2 940], [2007 ALT CRI 3 135], [2007 JT 4 393], [2007 SCALE 4 438], [2007 SUPREME 5 297], [2007 AIR JHAR R 2 905], [2007 OLR 1 803], [2007 CRLR 308], [2007 RCR CRI 2 390], [2007 DLT CRI 2 108], [2007 SLT 3 726], [2007 AIOL 306], [2007 AIR SC 49], [2007 BOMCR CRI SC 1 200], [2008 SCC CRI 1 674], [2007 SCR 4 125], [2007 AIC SC 54 131], [2007 CRIMES SC 3 115], [2007 AIR SCW 2198], [2008 MLJ CRL 1 172], [2007 CRLJ SC 2302]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1308370/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae60e4b0149711413a7a

https://www.indianconstitution.in/2021/12/ramkripal-so-shyamlal-charmakar-vs.html

Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021

Posted on April 29, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Supreme Court judgment here, Single bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur held that non-citizen women residing in India temporarily also are classified as ‘aggrieved person’.

It is noted that as per section 2(a) of the Act of 2005, the definition of ‘aggrieved person’ is given and as per the definition itself, any woman including a foreign citizen who is subjected to domestic violence can maintain an application before the trial court under the Act of 2005.
Not only this, section 12 of the Act of 2005 provides that even an aggrieved person can prefer an application through protection officer seeking the relief under the Act of 2005.
The fact that the respondent No.2 is resident of Jodhpur for last about 25 years and after having solemnized marriage with the petitioner, the incident which is reported in the complaint also took place at Jodhpur and therefore, in view of definitions enumerated under sections 2 (a) and 12 of the Act of 2005, it is held that the application preferred by the respondent No.2 before the trial court is maintainable. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyamlal Devda & Ors. V/s Parimala reported in AIR 2020 SC 762 also fortifies the fact of maintainability of the application under section 12 of the Act of 2005 in the present case. Para 10 of the judgment rendered in the case of Shyamlal Devda.
A plain reading of Act of 2005 also reveals that protection under this Act is also extended to the persons who are temporarily resident of India being covered under the definition of aggrieved person as per section 2 (a) of the Act of 2005.
Even Article 21 of the Constitution of India extends the benefit of protection not only to every citizen of this country, but also to a “person” who may not be a citizen of the Country. Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. Therefore, looked at from that angle, a person aggrieved i.e. respondent No.2 is very much entitled to get protection of section 12 of the Act of 2005.

Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021

Citations:

Other sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80330536/

Index of DV cases here.

D.K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal on 18 Dec 1996

Posted on April 26, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court laid down certain guidelines to be followed in cases of arrest and detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures. The said guidelines read as follows:-

(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.
(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a
relative of the arrestee.
(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well.
(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record.
(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.

D.K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal on 18 Dec 1996

Citations : [1997 ACR SC 21 277], [1997 AIR SC 610], [1997 ALD CRI 1 248], [1998 BLJR 1 161], [1997 CRILJ 743], [1996 CRIMES SC 4 233], [1997 GLR 2 1631], [1997 JT SC 1 1], [1997 RCR CRIMINAL 1 372], [1997 RLW SC 1 94], [1996 SCALE 9 298], [1997 SCC 1 416], [1996 SUPP SCR 10 284], [1997 SCC CRI 92], [1996 SUPPSCR 10 284]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/501198/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ace1e4b014971140fee9#

Dr. Rini Johar and Anr Vs State of MP and Ors on 03 Jun 2016

Posted on April 26, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court granted compensation to victims of police harassment, while quashing the criminal proceedings.

From Para 27,

27. In the case at hand, there has been violation of Article 21 and the petitioners were compelled to face humiliation. They have been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of guidelines issued in the case of D.K. Basu (supra), there are also flagrant violation of mandate of law enshrined under Section 41 and Section 41-A of CrPC. The investigating officers in no circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. In such a situation, the public law remedy which has been postulated in Nilawati Behra (supra), Sube Singh v. State of Haryana9, Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P.10, comes into play. The constitutional courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. That has been regarded as a redeeming feature. In the case at hand, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, we think it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation to each of the petitioners to be paid by the State of M.P. within three months hence. It will be open to the State to proceed against the erring officials, if so advised.

Dr. Rini Johar and Anr Vs State of MP and Ors on 03 Jun 2016

Citations : [2016 AIOL 3407], [2016 SCC ONLINE SC 594], [2016 SCC 11 703], [2017 SCC CRI 1 364], [2016 AIR SC 2679], [2016 AIC 163 98], [2016 CRI LJ 3156], [2016 GUJ LH 2 607], [2016 KLJ 3 613], [2016 KLT 3 502]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103942103/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b545e561097e45a4e6b3

Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022

Posted on April 14, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full Bench of Apex Court (Justice Ravindra Bhat’s name is missing in the judgment PDF), while overruling the decision in Dr.P.Pathmanathan case here, held that, limitation under section 468 CrPC does not apply to DV cases filed under Section 12 of the Act. They are not defined as crimes under the Act.

From Paras 20 and 21,

20. It is thus clear that the High Court wrongly equated filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution. In our considered view, the High Court was in error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence.
21. It is, however, true that as noted by the Protection Officer in his Domestic Inspection Report dated 2.08.2018, there appears to be a period of almost 10 years after 16.09.2008, when nothing was alleged by the appellant against the husband. But that is a matter which will certainly be considered by the Magistrate after response is received from the husband and the rival contentions are considered. That is an exercise which has to be undertaken by the Magistrate after considering all the factual aspects presented before him, including whether the allegations constitute a continuing wrong.
22. Lastly, we deal with the submission based on the decision in Adalat Prasad. The ratio in that case applies when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and issues process, in which event instead of going back to the Magistrate, the remedy lies in filing petition under Section 482 of the Code. The scope of notice under Section 12 of the Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the Statute so that after considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued. Thus, the matter stands on a different footing and the dictum in Adalat Prasad would not get attracted at a stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Act.

Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/147915185/

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/court-entitled-to-take-cognizance-where-the-complaint-was-filed-within-the-limitation-period-sc-in-kamatchi-vs-lakshmi-narayanan-5857.asp

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/limitation-period-us-468-crpc-not-applicable-application-us-12-domestic-violence-supreme-court-kamatchi-vs-lakshmi-narayanan-2022-livelaw-sc-370-196595

https://www.barandbench.com/news/application-under-section-12-of-domestic-violence-act-need-not-be-filed-within-1-year-of-alleged-act-of-domestic-violence-supreme-court

Earlier decision of Madras High Court here.

Index of DV cases here.

Priya Bala Ghosh Vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 Mar 1971

Posted on April 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Division Bench of Apex Court held that, the second marriage has to be proved by establishing the ceremonies constituting the same have been gone through for an offence of Bigamy to be made out.

As pointed out earlier, this Court in Kanwal Ram’s case has laid down that an admission is not evidence of the fact that the second marriage has taken place after the ceremonies constituting the same have been gone through.

Towards the end of Judgment:

Further as pointed out by this Court in Kawal Ram’s case, the admission in Ex. 2 cannot in law be treated as evidence of the second marriage having taken place in an adultery or bigamy case: and that in such cases it must be proved by the prosecution that the second marriage as a fact has taken place after the performance of the essential ceremonies. Mr. Majumdar relied on the decision of this Court in Bharat Singh and another vs. Bhagirathi(1) to the effect that the admissions made by a party are substantive evidence by themselves in view of ss. 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, and that if those admissions have been duly proved they can be relied on irrespective of the fact whether the party making them appear in the witness box or not or irrespective of the fact whether such a party had or had not been confronted with those admissions. We do not think that the said decision in any way supports the appellant with regard to prosecution for bigamy under s. 494 I.P.C. To conclude, we have already referred to the fact that both the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court have categorically found that the Homo and Saptapadi are the essential rites-for a marriage according to the law governing the parties and that there is no evidence that these two essential ceremonies have been performed when the respondent is stated to have married Sandhya Rani. No reliance can be placed on the admissions stated to be contained in Ex. 2.

Priya Bala Ghosh Vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 Mar 1971

Citations : [1972 CRI LJ 275], [1971 SCC 1 864], [1971 SCC CRI 362], [1971 SCR 3 961], [1971 AIR SC 1153], [1971 CRLJ SC 939]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80924/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab75e4b014971140c8aa

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=001791071000&Title=PRIYA-BALA-GHOSH-Vs.-SURESH-CHANDRA-GHOSH

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to

Ramchandra Laxman Kamble Vs Shobha Ramchandra Kamble and Anr on 21 Dec 2018

Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022

Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt Director and Ors on 11 Aug 2010

Jagannath Verma and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 23 Sep 2014

Ramkripal Charmakar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 19 Mar 2007

Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021

D.K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal on 18 Dec 1996

Dr. Rini Johar and Anr Vs State of MP and Ors on 03 Jun 2016

Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022

Priya Bala Ghosh Vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 Mar 1971