MRS. ALPHENSA Vs. PAUL SANKER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the Appellant -complainant for setting aside the orders of acquittal of the four Respondents who are accused Nos. 1 to 4, passed by tie learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinani in C.C. No. 54 of 1975. The Appellant herein has filed a private complaint against seven persons including Respondent! Nos. 1 to 4 herein stating that they had committed the offence punishable under Section 494, I.P.C. read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 494, I.P.C. read with Section 109, I.P.C.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated are as follows The Appellant Mrs. Alphonsa is a Christian by birth. She and the first Respondent Sankara -narayanan who was a Hindu by birth, got married under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act on 26th August 1970 before die Registrar of Marriages at Chidambaram as evidenced by Ex. P -1, the certificate of marriage. After the registration of the marriage, according to the Appellant, the first Respondent -her husband voluntarily expressed his inclination to become a, Christian on his own conviction prompted by interest of their family life, and accordingly he was baptized in the Cuddalore Church and thereby he became a convert to Christianity assuming name Paul Sanker. He had been observing all the customs and regulations of the Christian religion thereafter and that on the expressed desire and consent of the first Respondent, the marital tie of the Appellant and the first Respondent was solemnized as per Christian religion rites and customs on 28th September 1973 at Velanganni Church by the holy priest. The first Respondent had also signed the marriage register maintained in the said Church on that date in token of the said solemnization. While so the first Respondent contracted a second marriage with one Kayalvizhi, the second Respondent in the Kalyanamandapam of Swamimalai temple on 7th October 1973 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies and the regulations of the said temple.

(3.) HENCE the Appellant laid the complaint for the offence of bigamy against the four Respondents and three others who were since discharged. The Appellant examined 5, witnesses including herself and marked Exs. P -1 to P -9 on her side. On the side of the Respondents two witnesses were examined and Exs. D -1 to D -4 were marked. The Appellant herself as PW. 1. has spoken to the averments made in the cropland and stated that her husband, true; first Respondent was a Christian by conversion and their marriage which took police on 26th August 1970 before the Registrar of Marriages at Chidambaram, was solemnized subsequently on 7th October 1973 at Velanganni as per Christian rites and customs and while that marriage between herself and the first Respondent is still subsisting, the first Respondent has contracted the second marriage With, the second Respondent and thereby he Has committed the offence punishable under 1494, "I.P.C. P.W:2, namely, Dr. Sarojini Giri, has deposed that she and her husband attended the marriage of P.W 1 along with the first Respondent on 26th August 1970 and that she had signed in the register the original of Ex. P -1 as a witness. P.W.3, who is the father of the Appellant (P.W. 1) corroborates the evidence of the Appellant and states that the first accused (the first Respondent) converted to Christianity after the marriage with his daughter P.W. 1 and the said marriage was subsequently solemnized on 28th September, 1978. P.W.4 is a clerk of the Swamimalai Devasthanam. P.W.5 is the purohit of the said temple. Ex. P -9, the carbon copy of the marriage form, maintained at the said Devasthanam Office was marked through P.W.4 He has stated that on 7th October 1973 between 6 -A -M. and 7 -30 A.M., P.W.5 performed the marriage of one P. Sankara -narayanan with Kayalvizhi. He also marked Ex. P -2, a true copy of the marriage form No. 1588. He has sworn to the fact that he performed the marriage between the first and take second Respondents in the Kalyanamandapam of the temple on 7th October 1973 in accordance with the Hindu rites and the temple regulations observing all Hindu religious ceremonies. He identified both the Respondents before the trial Court.