- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18115 CRL.A No. 1403 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1403 OF 2025 (A) BETWEEN: SMT. SAROJA,.H. V. W/O. RAJASHEKHARA, AGED 68 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. GANTINAKOPPA VILLAGE, ANANDAPURA HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DIST - 577 412. &APPELLANT (BY SRI. BIMBADHARA M. GOWDAR,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAJASHEKHARA. K. S, S/O SADASHIVAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O. RAJASHEKHARA. K. S, AGED 59 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF: ALAGERI MANDRI VILLAGE, HARIDRAVATHI POST, HOSANAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT- 577 412. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18115 CRL.A No. 1403 of 2025 THIS CRL.A FILED U/S 378(4) CR.PC (FILED U/S 419(4) BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SAGAR, IN C.C.NO.124/2019 DATED 07.02.2025 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 494 OF IPC, AND BE PLEASED TO CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the complainant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.02.2025 passed in CC.No.124/2019 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Sagar, by which complaint filed by the appellant herein under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking an order to take cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the respondents herein under Section 494 of IPC by which the accused/respondent herein has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18115 CRL.A No. 1403 of 2025 2. The case of the complainant/appellant is that her marriage with accused No.1 was solemnized 24 years prior to filing of the complaint in terms of Hindu rites and rituals. After sometime, accused No.1 started to ill-treat the complainant/appellant herein constraining her to reside with her children separately. Accused No.1 illegally married accused No.2 and they have been living together as husband and wife and have begotten three children out of the said marriage. The second marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.2 is during the subsistence of the first marriage and is therefore invalid. Accused is guilty of offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC. Hence, a complaint was filed. 3. Records reveal that pre-charge trial was conducted. Charges were framed since the accused pleaded not guilty, matter was set down for trial. 4. Complainant examined herself as PW1 and exhibited 11 documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. No - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18115 CRL.A No. 1403 of 2025 evidence is recorded on behalf of the accused, except confronting a document Ex.D1 a Partition Deed. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence, passed the impugned order acquitting the accused of the alleged offence under Section 494 of IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that there is a categorical admission by accused No.1 of he marrying accused No.2 and having 3 children. He draws the attention of the Court to the affidavit dated 20.07.2019 marked as Ex.P3 which is filed by accused No.1 in the proceedings initiated by the complainant/appellant under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in C.Misc.No.94/2014. Referring to unnumbered para 2 of the said affidavit, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is an admission by accused No.1 acknowledging accused No.2 to be his wife and he having 3 children out of the said marriage, is sufficient enough to convict and sentence the accused person to undergo the imprisonment - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18115 CRL.A No. 1403 of 2025 as contemplated under Section 494 of IPC. He submits that the trial Court has erred in not taking the said piece of evidence into consideration by erroneously relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KANWAL RAM AND OTHERS VS HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATION, reported in AIR 1966 SC 614. Thus, he submits when there is an admission by the accused himself, there was no requirement of complainant- appellant to discharge any burden in this regard. Hence, seeks for allowing the appeal. 6. Heard. Perused the records. 7. The marriage between the complainant/ appellant and accused No.1 is not in dispute. Allegation in the complaint is that accused No.1 has contracted marriage with accused No.2 during the subsistence of the marriage with the complainant/appellant. No details with regard to accused No.1 marrying accused No.2 are provided. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18115 CRL.A No. 1403 of 2025 8. In the cross-examination recorded on 30.09.2024, the complainant has deposed as under: "¢:29.12.1989 gÀ°è 1 £Éà DgÉÆæ, £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÉÆA¢UÉ «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¨sÁUÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj «¨sÁUÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë £ÉÆÃr UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤r-1 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À0Á¬ÄvÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ UÁrðAiÀÄ£ï DV ¥Á®£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À SÁvÉ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 1 £Éà DgÉÆæ 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý 1989 £Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è ¥Á®Ä ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî0ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. 2 £Éà DgÉÆæ 1 £Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß J°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ AiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¸ÀºÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 2013 £Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎw½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÁzÀgÀÆ £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÁ JAzÀgÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ AiÀiÁªÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄAvÉ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ £ÉÆAzsÀtÂAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÀ E®èªÁ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ £ÉÆAzsÀtÂAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÀ E®èªÁ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 1 £Éà DgÉÆæ 2 £Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è CªÀgÀÄ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 2008 £Éà E¸À«¬ÄAzÀ 1 £Éà DgÉÆæ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁV ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. DvÀ C ¢£À¢AzÀ AiÀiÁgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 1 £Éà DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 £Éà DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è." 9. Clearly, no iota of oral or documentary evidence is produced with regard to the alleged marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18115 CRL.A No. 1403 of 2025 10. As regards the purported admission made by accused No.1 in his affidavit produced Ex.P3 is concerned, following is found: "ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß JgÀqÀ£Éà ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ½UÉ d¤¹gÀĪÀ JgÀqÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¹¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¸À»¸ÀzÉ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁUÀĪÁUÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÈzÁÝ¥Àå¢AzÀ PÀµÀÖªÁVgÀĪÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÄðAzÀ ªÉÄÃ0É fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ. " 11. The trial Court relying upon the said judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KANWAL RAM AND OTHERS VS HIMACHAL PRADESH (supra), has declined to accept the contention of the complainant that the said admission to be sufficient enough to convict the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC, wherein it has been held as under: "Secondly, it is clear that in law such admission is not evidence of the fact of the second marriage having taken place. In a bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact, that is to say, the ceremonies constituting it, must be proved." 12. The trial Court has also taken into consideration the evidence required under provisions of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18115 CRL.A No. 1403 of 2025 13. In the absence of cogent and unambiguous material evidence being brought on record the accused persons cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC, particularly in the light of deposition of the complainant, during her cross- examination conducted on 30.09.2024 as noted above. 14. No grounds are made out to take view other than what is taken by the trial Court. Appeal lacks merits. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26