S NAGALINGAM Vs. SIVAGAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 1999 reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. The learned single Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 494, IPC.

(3.) The appellant, S. Nagalingam married respondent-complainant Sivagami on 6-91970. Three children were born from that wedlock. The respondent alleged that the appellant started ill-treating her and on many occasions she was physically tortured. As a result of ill-treatment and severe torture inflicted by the appellant as well as his mother, she left her marital home and started staying with her parents. While so, the respondent came to know that the appellant had entered into a marriage with another woman on 18-6-1984, by name Kasturi, and that the marriage was performed in a Marriage hall at Thiruthani. The respondent then filed a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate against the appellant and six others. All the accused were acquitted by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1992 before the High Court of Madras. The learned single Judge, by his judgment dated 1- 11-1996 upheld the acquittal of accused 2-7, but as regards the acquittal of the appellant, the matter was remitted to the trial Court permitting the complainant to adduce evidence regarding the manner in which the marriage was solemnized. Upon remand, the Priest (PW-3), who is alleged to have performed the marriage of the appellant with the second accused, Kasturi, on 18-6-1984, was further examined and the appellant was allowed further cross-examination. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his judgment dated 4-3-1999 acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court of Madras. By the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge held that the appellant had committed the offence punishable under Section 494, IPC. This is challenged before us.