P.K.PADMINI Vs. A.M.DAMODARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a prosecution of the offence under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, the complainant -wife arrayed the entire family as accused. After trial, the trial court found only the 1st accused, who is the husband, guilty of the offence. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - with default clause of simple imprisonment for three months under Section 494 IPC. Aggrieved accused preferred appeal as Crl. Appeal No.183/1994. The lower appellate court, on re -appreciation of the evidence, found it difficult to concur with the finding of the trial court and reversed the finding and acquitted the 1st accused also. Challenging the said finding, the complainant has come up in appeal before this Court. The facts absolutely essential are as follows:

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant, her marriage with the 1st accused was solemnised on 22.02.1982 from her house and the rites were performed by PW3. According to the complainant, the marriage still subsists and during the subsistence of marriage, on 04.06.1989, the 1st accused is alleged to have married the 2nd accused. A private complaint was filed by the wife, cognizance of which was taken and proceedings were initiated by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned after complying with necessary formalities. Summons was issued to the accused and they entered appearance. After complying with the provisions of Section 244 Cr.P.C and finding that the accused could not be discharged thereof, charge was framed for the offence under Section 494 IPC. To the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, on the side of the complainant, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked.

(3.) THE trial court found the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 to be convincing enough and came to the conclusion that there was subsisting marriage between the complainant and the 1st accused when the 1st accused married the 2nd accused on 04.06.1989. Accordingly, he was found guilty. In appeal, the finding was in other way.