SHANTABAI Vs. HARIBA S O LIMBRAJ SHETOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Shantabai wife of Hariba Shetole is the lawfully wedded wife of responded No. 1 Hariba s/o Limbraj Shetole. She was married to him about 7 to 8 years prior to May 28, 1973, on which day respondent No. 1 was alleged to have contracted a second marriage with respondent No. 2 Bharatbai although his marriage with the appellant was still subsisting and valid. In other words, he was alleged to have contracted second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage and when his first wife was still living. Respondents 3 and 4 are respectively the father and mother of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 5 Maruti and respondent No. 6 are respectively the father and mother of respondent No. 2, while respondent No. 7 is the maternal-uncle of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 8. alleged to have officiated as a priest at the time of the second marriage. THE complainants case was that respondent No. 1 entered into second marriage with respondent No. 2 with the active assistance of respondents 3 to 8 on May 28, 1973 at about 9.30 a.m. at the village of Kharosa. THE marriage is said to have taken place in the temple of Vishnu at that village. THE present appellant, therefore, filed the complaint on 17-11-1973 before the Judicial Magistrate at Ausa within whose jurisdiction the offence was alleged to have been committed, alleging that accused No. 1 had committed an offence under section 494 I.P.C., while accused Nos. 2 to 8 committed an offence under section 494 read with section 109 I.P.C. by aiding and abetting him in the commission of that offence. THE accused denied the charge. Accused No. 1 denied that he entered into ceremony of marriage or contracted marriage with accused No. 2 as alleged by the complainant. Similarly the other accused also denied the same. In support of the charge, the complainant relied on the evidence of her father Sambhaji and one witness by name Dattoba Sarwade. Besides, one Nandlal Pande, who was Gram Sevak of Kharosa was also examined in order to prove an entry in the Marriage Register relating to this marriage. It appears that the father of the complainant was working as a peon in certain school. According to him, on the day in question he was proceeding on foot to Ausa via Hasegaonwadi on official duty. On the way, he met one Narba Lavate who informed him that accused No. 1 and the other accused had gone to Vishnu Temple at Kharosa in order to celebrate the marriage of accused No. 2 with accused No. 1. Sambhaji stated that he then approached the Police Patil of Kharosa but the letter expressed his helplessness in the matter in the absence of any order from the Court directing him to take any action. THE father further stated that he, therefore, rushed to the temple and found that all the accused were engaged in making preparations for the marriage. He claims to have raised a protest to accused No. 5, but accused No. 5, who is the father of accused No. 2, stated that he had resolved to get his daughter married to accused No. 1, and hence Sambhaji left the place. At that time he found that Dattoba Sarwade and one Tukaram Wani were also present at the temple and in the presence of these two persons he had a talk with accused Nos. 3 and 5. Dattoba claimed to have attended the marriage at the investigation of accused No. 3. It was suggested to this witness that he was on inimical terms with accused No. 3 inasmuch as the latter had given evidence against the father of the witness in a murder trail. THE witness, however, evaded the question by stating that he did not know anything about it. He had no courage to stoutly deny this suggestion but he only feigned ignorance about it. Besides, it does not appear that he belongs to the community to which the two spouses belonged nor was he in any way related to them or was on friendly terms with them. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that he could have been invited for the marriage. THE witness also stated that all the necessary ceremonies required for valid marriage such as saptapadi were performed during this marriage, but in cross-examination he frankly admitted that he did not understand what saptapadi meant. THEn the evidence of Gram Sewak is also of not very much assistance because the Gram Sewak appears to have made an entry in the Marriage Register maintained by him on the information received by him from the village sanadi. That village sanadi has not been examined. It is, therefore, not possible to know as to from what source the village sanadi got this information---whether he had personally witnessed the marriage or whether he had heard it from anybody else. Besides, it was possible for the prosecution to examine the Police Patil as well as Narba Lavate in support of what the father of the complainant stated, but none of them was examined. Thus the evidence led by the prosecution fell far short of establishing that really any marriage ceremony was performed and accused No. 1 was married to accused No. 2. That being so, the lower Court was right in acquitting the accused for want of sufficient evidence. THE appeal is, therefore, dismissed confirming the order of acquittal.