SAU. SHAKUNTLA Vs. MADHAV BODHARAM PATIL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Sau. Shakuntala has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal dated 27-1-1981 passed by the J.M.F.C. Malkapur in Criminal Case No. 852 of 1979 filed by the complainant-appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 494 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) In the complaint filed by the appellant, she had alleged that she was married on 16-2-1971 with respondent No. 1 Madhav according to Hindu religious customs. They bore two children, one son and one daughter. She also alleged that the respondent No. 1 used to demand money from her parents through her and after extracting sufficient amount from her parents, the respondent No. 1 drove her away and sent her back to her parents house. Thereafter, he arranged his marriage with respondent No. 2 Nalini and both, respondents 1 and 2 got married according to Hindu religious rites on 19-7-1979. The appellant has given the list of witnesses in the complaint who were present at the time of the incident of marriage. At the time of verification, one Badalsingh Mohansingh was examined to show that he was present at the time of second marriage of respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2. But he has not been listed as a witness in the complaint. The appellant has examined herself as a prosecution witness and stated that respondent No. 1 got married with respondent No 2. She has stated the requisite ceremony and custom which is prevalent in her community. However, she admitted that she was not present at the time of marriage of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 19-7-1979. Then she has stated about the family disputes and the details of the marriage rituals in her community. P.W. 2 Gajanan is said to be an eye-witness. He does not describe in his examination-in-chief any rituals as stated by Shakuntala in her statement. However, this witness has stated that he saw the performance of marriage between respondent Nos. 1 and 2. One Brahmin was there and Marigalashtakas were chanted. However, this witness does not state the detail of the rituals which took place at that time. Devidas P.W. 3 has been examined as another eye-witness. He has stated there was Homan and seven steps were taken by the respondent No. 1 and five steps were taken by the respondent No. 2 at the time of the marriage and they exchanged the garlands. Some Puja was going on. However this witness is not specific as regards the rituals stated by complainant Shakuntala. P.W.4 Subhash Singh is also an eye-witness to the second marriage of respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 He does not describe the entire rituals which are required to be performed in the marriage of Lewa community. However, he has stated that Mangalashtakas were chanted and the garlands were exchanged and seven rounds were taken by Madhav and Nalini. This is the entire evidence so far as the second marriage is concerned.

(3.) During the cross-examination of these eye-witnesses, they have given different versions about the incident. However, none of the witnesses have stated the exact account of the rituals which according to the complainant are necessary in her community to perform a valid marriage. The accused was also examined and he has denied his second marriage with Nalini. Similarly, Nalini also denied, in her statement under Sec. 313 Criminal Procedure Code, her marriage with Madhav, the accused. Under these circumstances, the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses stated to have seen the incident, is not consistent to inspire confidence. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly disbelieved the witnesses acquitted the accused.