Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bheru Lal vs State on 18 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:12405]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 670/2011
Smt.Bhagwanti Devi W/o Sh. Bheru Lal Tank, R/o Talaya, PS
Dhamotar, District Pratapgarh
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bheru Lal S/o Kishan Lal Tank at present R/o Pala Khedi PS
Nikumb, District Chittorgarh
2. Smt. Madhu @ Maniya D/o Jamana Lal Tank, R/o Javad,
District Neemuch (MP)
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 224/2004
Bheru Lal S/o Kishan Lal Tak, R/o Gayariyawas, Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bheru Lal present in person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.GA
Ms. Bhagwanti present in person
Mr. S.S. Rathore
Ms. Ayushi Rathore
Mr. Chain Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment / Order
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 04/02/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 04/02/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18/03/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The present matter pertains to two interconnected legal
proceedings arising from matrimonial discord between the parties,
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:12:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12405] (2 of 8) [CRLA-670/2011]
which encompass both a criminal appeal and a criminal revision
petition. These proceedings, while distinct, are intrinsically linked
by overlapping factual circumstances and interrelated legal
questions.
1.1. The appellant-wife, Smt. Bhagwanti Devi, has filed a criminal
appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) challenging the judgment of acquittal rendered on
15.06.2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Pratapgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.
6/2010. In this case, her husband, the accused-respondent Bheru
Lal, was acquitted of the charge under Section 494 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the offence of bigamy. The
appellate court allowed the appeal of the accused, overturning the
trial court’s conviction. The trial court had, on 09.06.2008,
convicted the accused-respondents under Section 494 IPC, read
with Section 109 IPC, sentencing them to two years’ simple
imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹1,000 each, with a default
stipulation of an additional twenty days of simple imprisonment.
1.2. Simultaneously, the husband has filed a criminal revision
petition, challenging the judgment passed on 12.04.2004 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pratapgarh, in Criminal Appeal
No. 19/2004, arising out of Criminal Case No. 26/2003. This
appeal had affirmed the conviction of the accused under Section
498A IPC for cruelty, which had been imposed by the learned
Additional Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, in his
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:12:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12405] (3 of 8) [CRLA-670/2011]
judgment dated 16.06.2003. In the criminal case, the accused
was convicted for cruelty under Section 498A IPC and sentenced
to undergo one year’s simple imprisonment, along with a fine of
₹1,000, with a default stipulation of an additional month’s
imprisonment.
1.3. Given the intertwined nature of the facts and the overlapping
legal issues, both the appeal and the revision petition are being
adjudicated together as part of a consolidated examination.
Facts and Findings in Criminal Appeal No. 670/2011
2. The appellant, Smt. Bhagwanti Devi, married Bheru Lal
around two decades ago, and from their marriage, three children
were born, although only one survived. In 1999, Bhagwanti
learned that her husband intended to marry another woman,
Madhu @ Maniya Tank, during the subsistence of their lawful
marriage. Despite her efforts to intervene and prevent the second
marriage, Bheru Lal proceeded with it.
2.1. Subsequently, Bhagwanti filed a complaint alleging that her
husband had contracted a second marriage, thereby committing
the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC. After
investigation, charges were framed, and the trial court convicted
the accused under Section 494 read with Section 109 IPC. He was
sentenced to two years’ simple imprisonment along with a fine.
The accused appealed the conviction, and the appellate court
allowed the appeal, acquitting the accused of the charge. This
decision was subsequently challenged by Bhagwanti in the present
appeal.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:12:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12405] (4 of 8) [CRLA-670/2011]
3. In the appeal, this Court carefully examined the reasoning of
the appellate court and the evidence on record. It is a well-
established legal principle that to sustain a conviction under
Section 494 IPC, the prosecution must prove two critical
elements: (1) the existence of a valid and subsisting marriage at
the relevant time, and (2) the performance of a second marriage
with all the necessary ceremonies prescribed under personal law.
3.1. The prosecution, however, failed to provide adequate proof of
the solemnization of the second marriage, particularly the
performance of requisite ceremonies such as saptapadi, which is
essential to validate a marriage under Hindu law. The testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses were riddled with contradictions and
lacked corroboration. For instance, discrepancies arose regarding
the location of the second marriage, the timing of the ceremony,
and the mode of travel. These inconsistencies significantly
weakened the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
3.2. This Court finds it pertinent to refer to the judgment in
Vinod Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SBCRLA No.
734/2023, decided on 03.09.2023), which dealt with a similar
issue concerning the prosecution’s failure to establish the offence
under Section 494 IPC. In that case, the Court highlighted the
settled legal position that the prosecution must establish the
existence of a valid and subsisting marriage between the
complainant and the accused at the relevant time, and the
solemnization of a second marriage with all necessary customary
rites. The Court underscored that mere assertions of cohabitation
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:12:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12405] (5 of 8) [CRLA-670/2011]
or living together as husband and wife fall short of the statutory
requirements under Section 494 IPC.
3.3. In Vinod Kumari (Supra), the prosecution was found
wanting in providing concrete proof of the second marriage. The
witnesses’ testimonies were inconsistent, and there was no
corroborative evidence to substantiate the charge. The Court, in
that case, emphasized that suspicion alone cannot substitute
proof, and the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Following these binding principles, this Court finds that the
prosecution in the present case similarly failed to discharge its
burden of proof.
4. The appellate court, after a careful reappraisal of the
evidence, rightly acquitted the accused, as the evidence was
insufficient to establish the commission of the offence under
Section 494 IPC. The appellate court’s reasoning was sound,
grounded in well-established legal principles, and free from
perversity. Thus, this Court upholds the decision of the appellate
court and dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant.
Facts and Findings in Criminal Revision Petition No.
224/2004
1. In a separate but related matter, Bhagwanti filed a complaint
against her husband Bheru Lal and his family members under
Section 498A IPC, alleging cruelty. The complaint accused Bheru
Lal of subjecting her to physical and mental abuse, primarily due
to a dowry demand of ₹10,000. Bhagwanti claimed that when she
could not meet this demand, she was subjected to continuous
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:12:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12405] (6 of 8) [CRLA-670/2011]
harassment, which culminated in a failed attempt to set her ablaze
by the husband. The trial court convicted the husband under
Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment
along with a fine. The conviction was upheld by the appellate
court, and Bheru Lal filed the present revision petition, challenging
the findings.
2. The core issue before this Court in the revision petition
pertains to the challenge to the sentence rather than the
conviction itself. Bhagwanti’s testimony, supported by other
witnesses, painted a consistent picture of systematic mental and
physical cruelty. The allegations of verbal abuse, false accusations
regarding her character, and an attempt to cause her physical
harm through a kerosene-burning incident were credible. The trial
and appellate courts meticulously evaluated the evidence and
found that Bheru Lal’s actions amounted to cruelty as defined
under Section 498A IPC.
3. This Court finds no error in the concurrent findings of the
lower courts regarding the conviction, as the evidence presented
clearly establishes a pattern of behavior that caused significant
emotional distress and physical harm to the wife. The husband’s
conduct, including false imputations on her chastity, constitutes a
form of mental cruelty, which is a recognized ground for relief
under Section 498A IPC.
4. Regarding the sentence, however, the husband’s counsel
made a compelling argument that the long delay in proceedings,
coupled with the fact that the offence occurred over three decades
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:12:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12405] (7 of 8) [CRLA-670/2011]
ago, necessitates a reconsideration of the punishment. The
petitioner had already undergone a brief period of incarceration,
and there was no indication that he had committed any further
criminal acts during the pendency of the case.
5. This Court, taking into account the significant passage of
time and the petitioner’s age, as well as the lack of subsequent
criminal conduct, finds merit in the submission. While the
conviction remains intact, the Court reduces the sentence to the
period already undergone by the petitioner. This approach aligns
with the principles of reformative justice, which emphasize
rehabilitation over retribution in cases where the offender has
shown no further inclination to commit criminal acts.
Conclusion
6. In light of the above, the appeal filed by Bhagwanti against
the acquittal of her husband under Section 494 IPC is dismissed,
as the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the
offence beyond reasonable doubt. The concurrent findings of the
lower courts in relation to Section 498A IPC are affirmed, as the
husband’s conduct amounted to cruelty under the provisions of
the Indian Penal Code.
7. With regard to the revision petition, the sentence is reduced
to the period already undergone by the petitioner, acknowledging
the prolonged delay in the proceedings and his reformed conduct.
The fine amount of ₹1,000 imposed by the trial court remains
unchanged.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:12:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:32:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12405] (8 of 8) [CRLA-670/2011]
8. Both judgments of the lower courts, namely the acquittal
under Section 494 IPC and the conviction under Section 498A IPC,
are hereby affirmed, with the sentence in the latter case being
modified in accordance with the Court’s findings.
(FARJAND ALI),J
134-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:12:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:32:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)