URMILA Vs. KAILASH PRASAD TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER obtaining tequisite leave, the complainant has preferred this criminal appeal against an order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondents in a complaint case for an offence Under Section 494, read with Section 190 IPC.

(2.) IT was alleged by the appellant that she was legally married wife of the respondent No. 1. Two sons were born to her out of her marriage with the respondent No. 1. In 1980, she was thrown out of the house. In June 1981, the respondent No. 1 solemnized second marriage with the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 had knowledge of the fact that the first marriage of the respondent No. 1 with the appellant was subsisting on the date of her marriage with the respondent No. 1. Accordingly both the respondents were alleged to have committed an offence Under Section 494, read with Section 109 IPC. The respondents denied their guilt. By its impugned order, the Court below was pleased to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the appellant was not successful in proving that she was the legally married wife of the respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved, she has preferred this criminal appeal.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the respondents and after going through the record, I am of the view that there is no case made out for interference with the impugned order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondents by the Court below. In paragraphs 10 to 12 of the impugned order, the Court below has given cogent reasons for holding that the appellant failed to prover her marriage in accordance with law and, therefore, the respondents could not be held guilty of an offence Under Section 494, read with Section 109 IPC. I also went through the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses and found nothing to warrant a conclusion that the aforesaid finding recorded by the Court below is erroneous. Gopal Anant v. State of M. P, 1976 MPLJ 284, this Court came to the conclusion that it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the accused was already married and proof of actual first marriage was necessary. Admission of first or second marriage by accused is not evidence of it for purpose of proving solemnisation of the marriage in bigamy or adultery. This view was based on the two decisions of the Supreme Court in Kanwal Ram v. H. P. Administration, AIR 1966 S. C. 614, and Priya Bala v. Suresh Chandra, AIR 1971 S. C. 1153. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Bhaurao v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 S. C. 1564. I, therefore, find no case for interference with the impugned order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondents. It may be added that the view taken by the Court below was reasonably possible on the evidence , brought on record and, therefore, even if a contrary view was possible, that would not be sufficient for interference with the order of acquittal.