K. VELAYUDHAN Vs. SUMATHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.2 of 1999 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Tirur, and the first respondent herein is the complainant therein. She filed complaint originally before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi as C.C.No.172 of 1995 against her husband and four others alleging bigamous marriage punishable under Section 494 IPC. During the trial process before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi, the first accused went absconding, and the others faced trial. By judgment dated 29.05.1998, the accused Nos.3 to 5 were acquitted by the learned Magistrate, and the case against the first accused was split up and refiled as C.C.No.429 of 1998. After that the case was made over to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Tirur by orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri and there it was refiled as C.C.No.2 of 1999. The complainant was married by the first accused on 31.10.1993 in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies, and they fell apart after the birth of the 4th child. She has been residing separately from her husband for years. Her complaint is that while her marriage with the first accused was subsisting, her husband married another lady on 12.06.1994 in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies, and started residing with her after abandoning her and the four children.

(2.) The revision petitioner entered appearance before the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.2 of 1999, and he pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 494 IPC. The complainant examined six witnesses in the trial court, and proved Exts.P1 to P4 documents. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 He did not adduce any evidence in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty under Section 494 IPC. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 27.01.2000, the accused approached the Court of Session, Manjeri with Crl.Appeal No.38 of 2000. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.