STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NATVARLAL GIRDHARDAS AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Natvarlal Girdhardas, respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No 1174 of 1980, had lawfully married Nirmalaben on 24th Nov., 1971. Natverlal Girdhardas was prosecuted before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on the allegation that though the marriage between him and Nirmalaben was subsisting, Natvarlal again married with one Rekhaben on 7-10-1971. The prosecution case was that the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the former appeal had abetted commission of offence by Natverlal Girdhardas and Rekhahen. On these allegations, these live respondents were tried before the Darned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences punishable under section 494 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents denied the allegations made against them and contended that there was no marriage at all between Natvarlal Girdhardas and Rekhaben as alleged by the prosecution. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate appreciating the evidence recorded before him, reached the conclusion that there was no reliable and convincing evidence to prove any marriage between Natvarlal Girdhardas and Rekhaben and accordingly he acquitted the repondents Nos. 1 to 5. Being dissatisfied with the same, the State of Gujarat has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1174 of 1980 while Nirmalaben, original complainant has filled Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1981. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and, therefore, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) Mr. M. A. Bukhari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State and Mr. P. V. Hathi, learned advocate, appeared for the original complainant. They have taken me through the judgment of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The only witness examined before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to prove the alleged marriage between Natvarlal Girdhardas and Rekhaben Ganpatlal, PW 2 (Ex. 4) Nirmalahen is her brother's daughter. She deposed about the alleged marriage ceremony between Natvarlal and Rekhaben. Her evidence has been closely scrutinised by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and after careful scrutiny of the said evidence the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has reached the conclusion that the evidence of Rasilaben was not reliable. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has discussed the evidence of Rasilaben at length and he has shown how Rasilaben could not he depended upon at all. The reasons given by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for not relying upon her evidence are quite cogent and convincing and see no reason to defer from him in his appreciation of evidence of Rasilaben. Except the evidence of Rasilaben, there is no other evidence to establish the alleged marriage between Natvarlal Girdhardas and Rckhaben. When the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, on appreciating the evidence, has taken the view that the evidence or Rasilaben was not reliable and when the alleged marriage between Natvarlal and Rekhaben was not proved, see no reason to take a different view of the matter, and there are no reasons for taking a different view.

(3.) This court will not he justified in interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge when the view taken by the learned trial Judge seems to be quite reasonable, probable and possible view. There is, thus, no merit in either of' these appeals and hence both the appeals are. dismissed. The order of acquittal recorded by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby confirmed.