SHANTIMANL DEI Vs. LINGARAJ MOHARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the complainant and the respondent were the accused persons in the trial court, the respondent No. 1 Lingaraj being charged under Section 494 of the Penal Code and the other respondents being charged under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code. The case of the appellant was that she married the respondent No. 1 in 1970, but during the subsistence of her marriage, the respondent No. 1 married the respondent No. 3 in the month of Magh of the year 1975 and the other respondents had abetted the commission of the offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 of the Penal Code. At the trial besides examining herself as P.W. 1, the appellant had placed reliance on the evidence of four other witnesses. The case of the respondents was one of denial and false implication. They had not examined any witness on their behalf. On a consideration of the evidence, the trial court came to find that the charges had not been established against the respondents and accordingly an order of acquittal was recorded.

(2.) MR . Praharaj, the learned counsel for the appellant, has taken me through the evidence and has submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below is unreasonable and perverse calling for interference by this Court in revision. The certified copy of the judgement dated the 24th April, 1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri, in a suit for maintenance instituted by the appellant against the respondents, besides others, wherein a finding has been recorded that the respondent No. 1 has married the respondent No. 3 is sought to be admitted as additional evidence in this Court and I have heard both the sides on this question. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate holding the respondents not guilty of the charges framed against them are well -founded and no interference is called for. It has been submitted that there is no case for reception of additional evidence in this Court.

(3.) THE criminal case against the respondents was decided long prior to the decision in the civil suit. The finding recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge is not binding on the criminal court. As earlier indicated, the considerations in a case under Section 494 of the Penal Code and in a case of maintenance are distinct and different. It would not, therefore, be just, reasonable and proper, in my view, to admit at this stage the certified copy of the judgement passed by the learned Subordinate Judge as additional evidence. I would accordingly reject the application made for reception of additional evidence.