REVANASIDDASWAMY H M Vs. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Criminal Petition is directed against the order dated 11-8-1988, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Criminal Appeal No. 23/1985 confirming the order of conviction dated 19-10-1985 made in C.C. No. 905 of 1983, on the file of the J.M.F.C., Kadur.

(2.) A private complaint was filed by the father of Smt. Suman against accused No.1 Revanasiddaswamy and his brother Vecrabhadraswamy The allegations are that A.I married his daughter Suman first and thereafter he married one Gayalridevi, a Lecturer in Kannada in the Junior College, Tarikere. Complainant is a retired Principal of the Kannada Primary Training College, Hubli. Smt. Suman was working as the Telecommunication Office Assistant at Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs Hubli. In the month of March, 1983, Sri V.V. Mathad, a close friend of the Complainant approached the com? plainant stating that there is a proposal of marriage to his daughter Suman, in connection with which he had received a Icttet from Accused No. 2, the brother of accused No. 1.A.l was also working as a Technician in the telegraph office at Mysore. At the instance of V.V. Mathad and in pursuance of the letter by A.2, dated 21-3-1983 and 2-4-3983, complainant's daughter Suman was shown to accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the month of June, 1983. During that period A.1 gave a telegram demanding Rs. 2,000/- from Mr. Mathad for the purpose of purchasing clothes for the purpose of marriage. The amount asked for was sent and acknowledged by A.I. Accused No. 1 demanded a gold ring of his choice and also Mangalasutra for the marriage. The demands were fulfilled by the complainant. On 3-7-1983 Suman's marriage with A.I was performed. The said marriage took place in the Auditorium of the JG College of Commerce, Hubli. According to the complainant, the marriage was performed in accordance with the custom and articles like gold ring etc., were presented to the accused No.1. The complainant alleged that the marriage was solemnised in accordancc with the Lingayat Jangam Custom. All religious rites were strictly followed. During the marriage photographs of the newly wedded couple during the various ceremonies were taken. After ihc said marriage accused Nos. 1 and 2 went back from that place on 5-7-1983 stating that they would take Suman to their house on an auspicious day. Thus the daughter of the complainant Suman became the legally wedded wife of A.I. Later the complainant came to know that A.I married one Gayatridcvi, daughter of Vishwaradhya on 8-7-1983. The said Gayatridevi belonged to Birur Town. The said Gayatridcvi was working as Lecturer in the Junior college at Tarikere at that time. She belongs to the Lingayat Jangam Community. The marriage of Gayatridcvi with A.I was solemnised on 8-7-1983 in accordance with the custom of the Lingayat Community of Chickmagalur District. A.I thus after the solemnisation of the first marriage with Suman took Gayatridevi in scccond marriage, that too after performing the ceremonies according to the customs prevailing in Lingayat Jangam Community in Chikmagalur District and particularly at Birur. During thai marriage also photos of the marriage ceremonies were taken and for the purpose of this case the wedding card in respect of A.I and Gayatridcvi are also produced and they are part of the records. Even after the second marriage of A.I with Gayatridevi A.I wrote letters to his first wife Suman, complainant and also to V.V. Mathad informing about the second marriage with Gayatridevi and requested them to excuse him for having committed the mistake. These letters also form part of the records. It is also mentioned in the complaint that he cheated Gayatridevi concealing the information regarding the first marriage with Suman. The said marriage took place with Gayalridevi on 8-7-1983, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Kadur, where the complaint was filed. Process was issued by the learned Magistrate against both the accused. The learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, and after hearing both the Counsel for the parties convicted A.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 494 and 495 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R. 1. for six months on each count and acquitted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. As regards A.2 the learned Magistrate convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month.

(3.) Being aggrieved by both the orders of conviction and sentence accused No. 1 filed Criminal Appeal No.23 of 1985 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parlies allowed the appeal in part and confirmed the order of conviction of the accused u/Ss. 494 and 495 f.P.C. and modified the sentence to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- on each count and undergo SI. for one day till the rising of the Court and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for a period of three months on each count.