RAJENDRA SHAMRAO YESUGADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No.1 filed a private complaint under Section 494 r/w. Section 109 of I.P.C. against the applicants alleging therein that the applicant No.1 entered into matrimony with the applicant No.2 on 18th November 1977 at Village Bahe. According to the respondent No.1 as the marriage between the respondent and the applicant No.1 was subsisting on the day when the applicant No.1 and the applicant No.2 entered into matrimony, the said marriage was illegal and the applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 have committed offence under Section 494 r/w. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned JMFC, Islampur who conducted the regular Criminal Case No. 8 of 1983 convicted the applicant No.1 under Section 494 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and further ordered that the applicant should suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month in default of payment of fine. So far as the applicant No.2 is concerned, the learned JMFC convicted the applicant No.2 under Section 494 r/w. 109 if I.P.C. and sentenced her to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs.100/- and further directed that the applicant No.2 should undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days in default of payment of fine.

(2.) The applicant Nos.1 and 2 filed criminal appeal No.2 of 1999 in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Islampur. The said appeal was decided by order dated 6.4.2000 and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Islampur dismissed the said appeal. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned JMFC and confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, as stated above the applicants have preferred this criminal revision.

(3.) The revision is dismissed so far as the respondent No.2 is concerned. I have heard Mr Patil on behalf of the applicants and Mr. Saste on behalf of the State. Learned Advocate Mr. Patil preferred to argue the case of the applicant no.2. in the first instance. He submitted that the evidence placed before the learned trial Judge does not show that the applicant No.2 was aware of the fact that the applicant No.1 is already married and therefore holding the applicant No.2 guilty under Section 109 as also under Section 494 of I.P.C. was improper and the conviction of the applicant No.2 under those two sections was illegal. He had drawn my attention to the judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge as also the judgment delivered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and he submitted that nowhere the courts have indicated as regards the knowledge of the earlier marriage of the applicant No.1 with the respondent No.2. He therefore submitted that the conviction of the applicant No.2 under Section 494 r/w. 109 of I.P.C. is required to be set aside.