MANTU MALIK Vs. KAMALA MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th December, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1991 of that court thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20th September, 1991 passed by the learned S. D. J. M, Chandannagore in G. R. Case No. 394 of 1988 of that court. This G. R. Case was filed by one Smt. Kamala Malik against the accused persons (the present petitioners) on the ground that the accused Mantu Malik having married her according to Hindu rites in Baisakh, 1394 B. S. left her in Falgoon, 1394 B. S. in her parent's house, when she got pregnant out of that wedlock, never to take her back. Thereafter, she came to know that her husband, Mantu Malik was going to marry for the second time on 11th Ashin, 1395 B. S. and then on that stipulated date she along with her father and brother went to the house of her husband but seeing none of the inmates present there, they enquired and came to know that the members of that family had gone to attend the marriage ceremony at the house of one Lakshmi Malik at Dakshinpore, Bandipore. Then the complainant with her father and brother went to that place and reaching there they found that the marriage ceremony between Mantu and China was going on. She protested against such marriage between Mantu and China and drew the notice of the people who assembled there pointing out that she was the married wife of Mantu, when the accused persons other than Mantu told that they had been already in the know of such facts. In this way, the second marriage was performed.

(2.) Hence the said Kamala Malik, the first married wife of the accused Mantu, filed the complaint before the court of the learned S.D.J.M, Chandannagore in view of the provisions of Section 198 of the Cr. P. C.

(3.) After considering the evidence of the P.Ws. that was adduced before the framing of the charge, the learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused persons including the accused China, the alleged second wife of Mantu under Sections 494/109 of the Cr. P. C. when the charge was read over and explained to them, all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the witnesses of the complainant were further cross-examined and the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. Defence did not adduce any evidence. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the leaned Magistrate came to the finding that the charge against all the accused except the accused China had been established from the materials on record and accordingly he found the accused China not guilty and all the other accused persons guilty of the offence under Section 494 of the I. P. C., convicted them thereunder and sentenced the main accused, Mantu Malik to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, further rigorous imprisonment for five months and sentenced the other convicts to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine Rs. 200/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months each. As the charge was not proved against the accused China, the learned Magistrate acquitted her of the charge.