This article is written by Pujari Dharani. This article provides an analysis of the case of Santi Deb Berma v. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi (1990). It also explains the intricacies involved in proving the ceremonies for a Hindu marriage by establishing a case under Section 494 (offence of bigamy) of the Indian Penal Code.
Table of Contents
Introduction
“A man cannot be punished for the offence he did not commit.”
Criminal jurisprudence requires that the guilt of an accused person of any crime be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. This principle has also been followed in the Indian criminal justice system. Following this principle, the courts in India, in bigamy cases, always look at the evidence of whether the accused solemnised two marriages and whether both marriages are valid and are in subsistence. After the evidence adduced by both parties and, on perusal of the same by the court, either conviction or acquittal will result.
In Santi Deb Berma v. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi (1990), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India once again emphasised the requirement that both alleged marriages must be proved to be valid marriages in the eyes of the law and that mere cohabitation cannot be recognised as a valid marriage. This judgement became an important precedent in many subsequent, similar cases.
Details of the case
- Name of the case: Santi Deb Berma v. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi
- Date of the judgement: October 10, 1990
- Parties of the case
- Petitioner: Santi Deb Berma
- Respondent: Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi
- Citations: AIR 1991 SC 816; 1991 CriLJ 660; 1991 (2) RCR (Criminal) 432; 1991 Supp (2) SCC 616
- Type of the case: criminal appeal case
- Court: the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
- Provisions and statutes involved: Sections 494, 109, and 119 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Bench: Justice S.R. Pandian and Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy
Facts of Santi Deb Berma vs. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi (1990)
The appellant, Santi Deb Berma, and the respondent, Kanchan Prava Devi, got married on July 7th, 1962. Such marriage, as recognised by the court, is valid and is in subsistence. After seven years, i.e., on February 24, 1969, the appellant solemnised another marriage with Namita Ghosh. All the parties involved in this case are Hindus. The respondent, Kanchan Prava Devi, lodged a case against her husband, along with other co-accused, by giving a complaint to Munsif-Magistrate First Class, Sadar, Agartala, alleging that he committed the offence of bigamy. The Trial Court took up the matter and, after hearing arguments from both sides, a conviction under Sections 494 and 119 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as “IPC”) against the accused, Santi Deb Berma, was made, and co-accused persons were convicted under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the IPC. The punishment awarded by the Trial Court was one and a half years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 1000.
The accused appealed against his conviction order in the Additional Sessions Judge, Tripura West, and the Court acquitted all accused persons on the ground that the prosecution did not adduce specific evidence to prove that, in the second marriage, there is a performance of saptapadi, which is the most essential ceremony in any Hindu marriage, as mandated by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter mentioned as “HMA”) and judicial precedents. Not satisfied with the judgement of the Sessions Court, the complainant approached the Gauhati High Court.
The High Court, after examining the facts and evidence, especially the letters and oral evidence, concluded that the appellant, Santi Deb Berma, and the alleged second wife, Namita Ghosh, were leading a life as husband and wife in the eyes of society. The Court, thus, convicted only the appellant, Santi Deb Berma, under Section 494 of the IPC and confirmed the acquittal of the other co-accused. The punishment imposed on the convict was imprisonment till the rising of the Court, i.e., short-term detention in the courtroom until the proceedings came to an end, and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, in default of the same penalty of Rs. 1500 as to be paid, out of which Rs. 1000 is directed to go into the hands of the complainant.
The appellant in the present case approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by way of a criminal appeal to challenge his conviction made by the Gauhati High Court.
Provisions involved in Santi Deb Berma vs. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi (1990)
Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides the requirement for the performance of ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.
- Clause (i) of Section 7 states that a Hindu marriage may be solemnised when the necessary ceremonies and rituals are performed by the parties to the marriage, the bride and bridegroom, while conducting such a marriage.
- Clause (ii) of Section 7 explains the performance of saptapadi and when it will be complete and binding. As per this clause, saptapadi is performed when the bride and bridegroom take seven steps together before the Homa, the sacred fire. Such a performance of saptapadi is to be complete and binding when the last, i.e., the seventh step, is taken by the bride and bridegroom together.
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 494 of the IPC provides punishment for the offence of bigamy. The law requires the prosecution to establish that the accused performed valid marriages to make him criminally liable. What kind of marriage will be considered as a valid marriage will be provided in the personal laws. For instance, in the case of a Hindu marriage, the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, specify requirements for a valid Hindu marriage.
For more information on Section 494, click here.
Issues raised in Santi Deb Berma vs. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi (1990)
The issue raised in this case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was:
- Whether living together in the same house as a husband and wife would amount to a valid Hindu marriage between such parties.
Arguments advanced
On behalf of the appellant
The learned counsel, Mr. Dutta, arguing for the case of the appellant, highlighted Section 7 of the HMA, which deals with essential ceremonies to be mandatorily performed, and stated that it is settled law that one such essential ceremony is saptapadi. The counsel strongly contended that a marriage without performing essential rites is no marriage in the eyes of the law, and, therefore, the Gauhati High Court made an error by considering that the appellant solemnised the second marriage without any solid evidence proving the performance of an essential rite, saptapadi.
The counsel also argued that the court’s finding that the appellant and Namita Ghosh are living together like a couple on the basis of oral evidence and three letters cannot amount to a valid Hindu marriage because, as per the provisions of the HMA, merely living together as husband and wife is not recognised as a valid marriage.
Judgement in Santi Deb Berma vs. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi (1990)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India found that the Gauhati High Court made an error while considering a mere cohabitation as a couple to be a valid Hindu marriage and concluded that the appellant, Santi Deb Berma, committed the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC and was sentenced to grave punishment.
The Court, thus, emphasised that the prosecution must prove the performance of all essential ceremonies by the parties concerned to establish that a valid Hindu marriage is solemnised. Furthermore, solemnization of two valid marriages is mandatory to establish by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt to fasten criminal liability under Section 494 of the IPC.
By stating this, the Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s conviction order and acquitted Santi Deb Berma.
Critical analysis of Santi Deb Berma vs. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi (1990)
The Supreme Court in Santi Deb Berma v. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi (1990) followed the principle of not assuming and making inferences that the allegations made by the complainant are true unless the prosecution proves them beyond all reasonable doubt, especially if it is a criminal case. In this case, the accused was alleged to have committed the offence of bigamy and sought justice by punishing him. However, as per the criminal law and the law of evidence, for punishing a man for the offence, mere actions like cohabitation and the intention of the accused to commit bigamy are not necessary. Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stipulates that the opinion of a person as to the relationship is not enough to prove a valid marriage for prosecution of such person for the offence of bigamy. Rather, the actual performance of a valid marriage for a second time with a woman other than a wife, when the first marriage is in subsistence, is necessary to establish a case of bigamy to fasten criminal liability on that accused. However, in the instant case, the prosecution was only successful in proving cohabitation by the accused and alleged second wife like a couple in society, not solemnization of a valid marriage. To find out whether such cohabitation amounts to a valid marriage in the eyes of the law, one has to look at the personal laws that govern the parties involved. As the parties are Hindus, the Supreme Court, in this case, referred to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which mandates the performance of essential religious ceremonies and rites to solemnise a Hindu marriage and, thus, held that it is not a valid marriage and cannot consider it as such for the purpose of convicting the accused under Section 494 of the IPC.
Conclusion
The prosecution, in Santi Deb Berma v. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi (1990), was only successful in proving a mere cohabitation and leading a life as a husband and wife in front of society and, from this, the Gauhati High Court made an inference that their relationship is a valid marriage and convicted the accused. However, the Supreme Court corrected this error and acquitted the appellant. The Court reiterated the emphasis on the performance of all essential ceremonies, including saptapadi, for considering a marriage valid as per the Hindu law. Therefore, an accused cannot be convicted for an offence he did not commit on the basis of inferences and assumptions.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Is saptapadi essential for a Hindu marriage?
Yes, saptapadi is an essential ceremony, as mentioned in Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Its performance is necessary for the solemnization of a Hindu marriage, and only then will it be considered a valid marriage in the eyes of the law.
In a landmark case, Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (1965), the Supreme Court held that “it is essential, for the purpose of Section 17 of the Act, that the marriage to which Section 494 of the IPC applies on account of the provisions of the Act should have been celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form. Merely going through certain ceremonies with the intention that the parties be taken to be married will not make them ceremonies prescribed by law or approved by any established custom.”
What can a person do if his or her spouse leaves him or her and cohabitates with the other person?
If one’s spouse leaves him or her and starts cohabitation with another person but has not yet married that person, then the prosecution for bigamy will fail because Indian courts and the law require solemnization of marriage and, in the case of both being Hindus, the performance of all essential ceremonies needed to be proved by the prosecution.
So, the legal option available under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is to repudiate the marriage by obtaining a decree of nullity of marriage, i.e., divorce. And the ground will be adultery, desertion, or both. Besides, if the spouse is female and wants to punish him and obtain justice for the sufferings she faced, she can charge him with Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, provided the mental cruelty must be a grave one, not a mere mental pain. Nevertheless, before going for criminal action, one must be mindful and conscious of the misuse of Section 498A and check whether it is truly cruelty because Section 498A was provided to women to protect them, not to use it as a tool for satisfying their vengeance. If it is a true case of cruelty, and for more information on Section 498A, click here and here.
References
- “Modern Hindu Law” authored by Dr. Paras Diwan.
- “The Indian Penal Code” authored by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
