SOMASUNDARAM Vs. DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 7.9.2000 made in C.A.No.41/1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum CJM, Cuddalore convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 494 read with section 109 IPC and sentencing the first petitioner to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/=, sentencing imprisonment of the petitioners 2 to 4 till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.1000/=.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(3.) A perusal of the deposition of P.W.2 who is the only eye witness to the alleged second marriage between accused Nos 1 and 2 would go to show that his evidence is not trustworthy and quite unnatural. Because P.W.1 is a resident of Neyveli and P.W.2 is a resident of Valaiamadevi which is 15 kilometers away from Neyveil. He deposed that when the first accused came and invited him for his marriage, he questioned him as to what happened to the earlier marriage and for that he answered that "TAMIL" The distance between A.1's village and P.W.2's village is 10 Kms. He also deposed that after 15 days of the alleged second marriage he met the complainantDhanalakshmiin his village Valaiyamadevi and enquired about her absence in the marriage, she replied that she was not aware of the second marriage and she felt very much about the second marriage. But in his cross examination, he deposed that "TAMIL" This material contradiction only goes to show that P.W.2 is only a planted witness. He is also not a relative of A.1 or a family friend of A.1. There is no necessity to invite P.W.2.