SARASWATHI Vs. THIRUPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the complainant before the trial Court namely, the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai and Calender Case No.1123 of 1997 came to be instituted on a complaint preferred by the appellant/complainant herein alleging that the respondents herein committed an offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial ended in conviction of both the respondents herein who figured as accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 IPC and both of them were sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100/ - with a direction to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week in case of default in payment of fine. On an appeal preferred before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.48 of 2002, the learned Appellate Judge (III Additional District and Sessions Judge) Madurai set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondents herein holding that the appellant herein had not proved that the respondents had committed the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC.

(2.) AS against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and acquitting the respondents herein, the appellant herein (complainant) has preferred the present Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 along with a petition under Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C seeking special leave to prefer such an appeal. The said petition filed under Section 378 (5) Cr.P.C, which was numbered as Crl.O.P.(MD)No.205 of 2004, stands allowed and the numbering of the appeal even before the grant of special leave stands ratified by the order granting special leave under Section 378(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) THE case of the appellant/complainant is that she is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent -Thirupathi (A -1) and that the first respondent, during the subsistence of his marriage with the appellant/complainant, married the second respondent -Dhanalakhsmi on 18.06.1997 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. The further case of the appellant/complainant is that the second respondent -Dhanalakshmi (A2) did marry the first respondent knowing fully well that the first respondent was already married and the appellant herein/complainant was his legally wedded wife and that the marriage between the appellant/complainant and the first respondent was subsisting at the time of her marriage with the first respondent and that thereby she also had committed the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC.