SNEHLATA KAILAS INGALE Vs. KAILASH RAJARAMJI INGALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 10. 1. 1996 passed by Sessions judge, Akola in Criminal Appeal No. 18/1993 allowing the appeal filed by respondent no. 1 against the judgment and order dated 6. 2. 1993 passed by Judicial magistrate First Class, Akot in Regular criminal Case No. 548/91.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of present appeal are as under:-The appellant who is original complainant and the wife of respondent No. 1 -original accused No. 1. According to the complainant, she got married with accused no. 1 on 6. 6. 1983. During the pendency of valid marriage accused No. 1 married one rajkanya and the marriage was solemnized on 19. 2. 1986. The complainant filed the above criminal case against accused No. 1 and eight others alleging offence punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal code. In the course of trial, the complainant examined four witnesses including herself as PW 1 Snehalata, PW 2 Devidas belsare, PW 3 Kisan Bochare and PW 4 vishwanath Adokar. The learned Magistrate relying upon the evidence led by the complainant convicted respondent No. 1 - accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- (Rs. Two hundred fifty only) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The Magistrate acquitted all other accused of the offence charged. The appeal preferred by accused No. 1 was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Akola. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant after seeking special leave to appeal under section 378 (4) of the Code of criminal Procedure.

(3.) Mr. Choube, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the lower Appellate Court erred in allowing the appeal against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate. He then urged that the evidence of PW 4 vishwanath Adokar has been rejected on unsustainable grounds and the eye witness to the second marriage was rightly believed by the Magistrate. He, therefore, urged that the appeal be allowed by maintaining the judgment and order passed by the learned magistrate.