KARUPPIAH SERVAI Vs. NAGAVALLI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST accused for an offence under Section 495 I. P. C. and accused 2 to 7 for an offence under Section 495 read with Section 109 I. P. C. faced trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Madurai. The learned Magistrate acquitted accused 5 to 7 and convicted accused 1 to 4 as charged and sentenced them to six months rigorous imprisonment. Against the conviction and sentence, accused 1 to 4 filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Madurai in Crl. A. P. 13 of 1979, The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The present petition is by accused 1 to 4 against the conviction and sentence confirmed by the lower appellate court.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is briefly as follows : Accused 1 and 4 are the sons of accused 2 and 3. The complainant, P. W. 1, was living with her maternal uncle, P. W. 2. Accused 2 to 4 negotiated marriage alliance for the first accused and P. W. 1 and negotiations were successful and P. W. 1 and the first accused were married on 27-31978, in Tiruparankundram Murugan temple. After a few days of the marriage, P. W. 1 came to know that the first accused had already married one Rakkammal, examined as P. W. 3 in the case and that marriage is still subsisting when her marriage with the first accused took place on 27-3-1978. When she enquired about the first marriage with Rakkammal, the first accused could not reply her properly and instead taking her thali he went away. After enquiry, P. W. 1 came to know that the present petitioners (accused 1 to 4) along with accused 5 to 7, in the trial court, were alone responsible for her marriage with the first accused on 27-3-1978, concealing the fact that the first accused was already married to Rakkammal. In support of her case P. W. 2, her maternal uncle and P. W. 3, the first wife of the first accused, were examined. P. W. 4, is also a witness on her behalf, who is a clerk in Thirupparankundram Subramaniaswami Koil temple, who speaks to the fact that on 27-3-1978, the first accused and P. W. 1 got married in the temple, after the first accused producing Ex. P. 4 to the effect that the first accused was not married previously.

(3.) THE petitioners admit the fact that the first accused was married to P. W. 1 on 27-3-1978. They also admit to the fact that the first accused was married to Rakkammal previously. But their defence is that the marriage of the first accused with Rakkammal was dissolved by a divorce. On their behalf, they examined D. Ws. 1 and 2 to prove to the fact of divorce.