IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT MUMBAI :

MAHARASTRA STATE

Criminal Appeal No. ---- of 2024

In

CC.NO. ----- of 2024

BETWEEN

Kevin
S/o Joseph, Aged about : 37,
Occupation : Business,
Shivam Heights, Andheri East 302,
Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400059

…….Appeallant/ Accused

AND

State of Maharastra,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
Andheri Police station,
Mumbai,Maharashtra
…..Respondant/ Complainant

1
 CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
UNDER SECTION 415 (2) OF BNSS

Memorial submitted on behalf of Respondent

1. Table of contents

S.NO CONTENTS Pg.No

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATION
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITY
a. Cases referred
b. Books referred
c. Statutes referred
d. Websites Referred
3. Statement of Jurisdiction
4. Statement of Facts
5. Statement of Issues
6. Arguments
7. Prayer

2
 2. Index of Authority

a. Cases Referred
1. Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002, 5 SCC 371
2. Faguna Kanta Nath Vs State of Assam, AIR 1959 SC 673

b. Books referred
1. ParasDiwan: ModernHinduLaw,AllahabadAgency, Delhi.
2. Mayne:HinduLaw-CustomsandUsages,BharatLawHouse,New
Delhi.
3. BNS, 2023 Bare Act
4. Avatar Singh: Principles of the Law of Evidence, Central Law
Publications
5. Mulla,TheCodeofCivilProcedure,LexisNexis,Butteworths,Wadh
wa
6. Tiwari:Drafting,PleadingandConveyancing,CentralLawAgenc
y
7. Statutes referred
1. BNS, 2024
2. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

8. Websites Referred
1. WWW. IndianKhannon.com
2. WWW. Casemine.com
3. www. Livelaw.com

3
List of Abbreveations
1. AIR – All India Reporter
2. SCC – Supreme Court Cases
3. BNS - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
4. Vs - Verses

4
3.Statement of Jurisdiction

All Appellant/ Accused preferred the present appeal before the

Hon’ble High court of Telangana, Hyderabad under section 415 (2)
OF BNSS.

5
 4. Statement of Facts

1. Steffi and Kevin were married in 2019, the couple lived together in
Mumbai until 2023. But their relationship deteriorated due to Kevin's
extramarital affair with Mansi.
2. Despite Steffi's objections, Kevin married Mansi in October 2024 in a
private ceremony while still legally married to Steffi, an act of
bigamy under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
2023.
3. Kevin’s younger brother named, Amit and several of his friends
attended the wedding.
4. One of Kevin’s friends, Abdul, actively helped to organize the
wedding and arranged it, despite of knowing about Kevin’s existing
marriage.
5. She also accused Abdul and Amit of aiding and abetting the
offence
6. A case was registered against Kevin, his brother and Abdul under
Section 82, Section 45 read with Section 3(5) of BNS 2023. All the
accused were arrested by Police from their residences.
7. Steffi filed a complaint, leading to the arrest and trial of Kevin, Amit,
and Abdul. Further investigation revealed Mansi instigated the
marriage through threats.
8. The Sessions Court convicted Kevin under Section 82 and all three
defendants under Section 49, sentencing them to 7 years
imprisonment and a Rs. 50,000 fine.

6
5. Statement of Issues

1. Is Kevin guilty of bigamy under Section 82 of BNS?

2. Can Abdul and Amit who were present at the second

marriage be made liable under Section 45 read with Section 3(5)
BNS?

7
 6. Arguments Advanced

Arguments on behalf of Respondent

ISSUES – ONE
1. Is Kevin guilty of bigamy under Section 82 of BNS? Yes. It is
established fact that Kevin and Steffi were legally married in 2019.
And both were living together in Mumbai till 2023. Therefore, there
is already one marriage is in existing between both parties.
2. Kevin’s first marriage with Steffi was legally valid and had not been
dissolved at the time he married Mansi in October 2024.
The alleged second marriage was conducted in a private
ceremony, but the law does not require a public or grand
celebration to establish a marriage.
3. The essential elements of marriage, including intention and
acknowledgment by both parties, were present, making the
second marriage legally recognized under Section 82 of BNS.
As per the section 82 of BNS, Marrying again during lifetime of
husband or wife. Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries
in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking
place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
4. Punishment for Bigamy – As per section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. In any marriage between two Hindus solemnized after the
commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage
either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of
sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (
section 82 (1) AND (2) of BNS), shall apply accordingly.

8
5. Therefore, it is clear that second marriage was performed in a
private ceremony while first marriage was in existance from the
facts. The sessions court also admitted that the fact second
marriage was performed between Kevin and Mansi. Despite having
full knowledge of Kevin's existing marriage to Steffi, they proceeded
with a second marriage in a private ceremony, attended by close
associates, with malafide intent and complete awareness.
6. It is declared by the session court earlier that the second marriage
between Kevin and Mansi is legally valid based on the evidence
produced by the prosecution. The trial court, after considering the
facts and evidence supporting the second marriage, reached its
conclusion based on the circumstances, as well as oral and
documentary evidence. The investigation established that the
marriage was legally conducted with the consent of both parties.
Hence, Kevin's actions constitute bigamy under Section 82 of BNS.

ISSUE - TWO
7. Can Abdul and Amit who were present at the second marriage be
made liable under Section 45 read with Section 3(5) BNS? As per
the section 45© (Abetment of a thing) of BNS where a person abets
the doing of a thing who- “(c) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing” And also further explanation 2 of
section 45 clarifies that “Whoever, either prior to or at the time of
the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commissionof that act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act”.

9
8. Abdul actively organized the wedding despite knowing that Kevin’s
marriage with Steffi was still valid. His direct involvement amounts to
aiding and abetting the offense. Abdul actively participated in
organizing the second marriage despite knowing that Kevin’s first
marriage was still legally valid. He made arrangements for the
ceremony, demonstrating intentional aid in committing bigamy.
His role was not merely that of an attendee; he played a crucial
role in facilitating the unlawful act.
9. Amit, Kevin’s younger brother, attended the wedding. While mere
presence does not constitute abetment, if there is evidence of his
active encouragement or support, it makes him culpable under
Section 45 read with Section 3(5) of BNS.
10. In Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002, 5 SCC 371, The
honorable Supreme court defined 'abet' as meaning to aid, to assist
or to give aid, to command, to procure, or to counsel, to
countenance, to encourage, or encourage or to set another one
to commit. The definition of 'abet' as laid down, makes it clear that
abetment only occurs when there are at least two person involved,
which further directs us towards the arrangement and operation of
the act. In Faguna Kanta Nath Vs State of
Assam, AIR 1959 SC 673, Intentional Aiding, A person is said to abet
the commission of an offence if he intentionally renders assistance
or gives aid by doing an act or omitting to do an act. Mere intention
to render assistance is not sufficient.
11. Therefore, Abdul and Amit were having complete knowledge
about their first marriage between Kevin and Steffi. Even though,
they intentionally aided and helped to organise – arranged it by

10
 attending the marriage with their friends. The actions clearly
constitute the offence of abetment under section 45 of BNS.
12. Further section 3(5) of BNS states as – “When a criminal act is
done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of
all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner
as if it were done by him alone”. Therefore, the trial court
established based on the oral and documentary evidence
produced by the prosecution that the common intention by the
Abdul and Amit were committed.
13. The earlier judgement and conviction given by the sessions
court is proper and consistant with law of BNS and the prosecution
produced the evidence and established the offence beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, Abdul and Amit are liable under
section 45 R/W 3(5) of BNS.

11
 PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments
advanced and authorities cited, the Hon’ble High Court may be
pleased to:
1. To uphold the judgement and conviction passed by the session
court.
2. To declare Kevin guilty of offence of bigamy under section 82 of
BNS.
3. To declare Abdul and Amit are guilty of offence of abetment under
section 45 of BNS read with 3(5).
4. Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and good
conscience.

Sd/-

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDANT

12