PARWATI Vs. BHAURAO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant-wife has challenged the order of acquittal of her husband and others for an offence punishable under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Complainant Parwatibai was married with respondent No. 1 Bhaurao about 17 years ago. The fact of their marriage is admitted by respondent No. 1 and also there is a finding to that effect given by the trial Judge. It is the complaint of Parwatibai that Bhaurao performed second marriage with respondent No. 2 Nalu on 11.19.1978 at Paratwada and thus committed an offence of bigamy punishable under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. She further alleged that respondent 3 to 10 abated the second marriage of Bhaurao. Complainant Parwatibai has been examined as P.W. 1. She has not attended the second marriage of Bhaurao with Nalu. P.W. 2 Tulshiram has been examined to prove the custom prevailing in the Mahar community to which the complainant and the respondents belong. P.W.4 Manjulabai and PP.W. W 5 Ganesh were the participant in the second marriage of Bhaurao and were examined as eye witnesses to the actual offence. The accused also examined Tulshiram as D.W. 1, Sahdeo as D.W. 2 and Baban as D.W. 3 to prove the defence of Bhaurao that his marriage with respondent No. 2 Nalu is not a valid marriage. The learned trial court found that there is no consistent, reliable and convincing evidence about the performance of second marriage by respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 and no essential requirements of valid marriage has been proved by the complainant and, therefore, relying on the proposition of law laid down in the case of Kanwal Ram and others Vs. The Himachal Pradesh Administration, AIR 1966 SC 614 , acquitted the accused persons. The said acquittal is impugned in this appeal.

(3.) Shri V.G. Moharil, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that there is no proper appreciation of evidence and that despite the positive evidence on record to warrant the conviction of the respondents, the trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused persons. Shri B.P. Gaikwad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 10 supported the order of acquittal reached by the trial court. According to him, the evidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to establish the essential requirements of second marriage of respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 and relying on the proposition of law laid down in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 1594) submitted that no offence is proved against the respondents. Shri H. Ahmad, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State supported the acquittal of the accused and submitted that the acquittal is proper.