ANITA KUMARI RATH Vs. BATA KRUSHNA RATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal, may be briefly stated thus: The complainant Anita Kumari Rath is the legally married wife of respondent No. 1 Bata Krushna Rath and respondent No. 2 Gopal Rath is her father -in -law. The marriage of the complainant -appellant with respondent No. 1 was solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies on 8.5.1978 and thereafter they lived as husband and wife for about one year. Subsequently, as the complainant was tortured and ill -treated by her husband and his parents, as her father did not give them the promised dowry the complainant had to return to her father's house. Shortly thereafter, as her husband (respondent No. 1) had married one Nirmala Satapathy, daughter of Jadumani Satapathy, on 4.7.1979, she had to file the complaint case No. I.C.C. 341 of 1979 against her husband under section 494, 109, I.P.C. impleading the parents of her husband, the second wife Nirmala and her father as co -accused persons and alleging that they abetted the offence of bigamy and thereby rendered themselves liable under sections 494, 109, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate, while acquitting the other accused persons, convicted and sentenced the complainants husband under section 494, I.P.C. and her father -in -law under sections 494/109, I.P.C. and on their preferring an appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1981, before the learned additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, he allowed the same and both of them were acquitted by his judgment dated 20.9.1982. Hence, the complainant prefers this appeal against the said judgment of acquittal of the appellate court.

(2.) THE plea of the respondents is one of complete denial. The respondents pleaded that accused Bata has not married anyone and he is still a bachelor. The respondents have examined 7 D.Ws. in support of their plea.

(3.) P .W. 1. Anita Kumari is the complainant. She stated on oath that on 21st day of Baisakha, 1978 she was married to Bata Krushna (respondent No. 1). Her evidence shows that there was 'Homo' on the altar and there was the observance of 'Saptapadi' and 'Hastaganthi' and thus she was married to respondent No. 1 after due observance of the customary rites and ceremonies. P.W. 7 is the complainant's father and he corroborates the version of his daughter (P.W. 1) regarding the performance of her marriage after due observance of the customary rites and ceremonies. P.W. 2 is the family barber of the complainant's family and he deposed that at the time of the complainant's marriage he acted as the barber. P.Ws. 6 and 8 deposed that they were invited to the marriage function. The independent witnesses P. Ws. 2, 6 and 8 stated in their evidence that there was 'Homo' and the observance of the customary rites of 'Hastagantbi' and 'Saptapadi' at the time of the complainant's marriage with Bata. Thus, from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8, it can be safely held that the marriage of the complainant with Bata (respondent No. 1) was duly solemnised. The evidence of P.W. 1 Anita that after her marriage, she and Bata (respondent No. 1) lived together in his house as husband and wife for ten months, was not shaken in cross -examination and, therefore, the same can be accepted as true.