DAVINDER KAUR Vs. SANTOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT Smt. Devinder Kaur filed against six accused Criminal complaint No. 10 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, on January 7, 1983 under section 494, 496, 498 read with Sections 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 1 Gurcharan Singh legally wedded husband of the complainant was alleged therein to have married a second time, during the life time of the complainant his first wife, with Smt. Darshan Kaur respondent No. 4. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the mother and sister of Accused No. 1 while accused Nos. 5 and 6 are parents of accused No. 4. First marriage of accused No. 1 with complainant was performed on November 26, 1987 and the second marriage with accused No. 4 on October 27, 1982. Accused respondents 2 and 3 as also accused respondents 5 and 6 have been prosecuted as co-conspiratiors and abettors in the performance of the second marriage. Vide its impugned judgment dated February 10, 1986 learned trial Court acquitted the second bride Smt. Darshan Kaur accused No. 4 as also Smt. Kuldip Kaur sister of accused No. 1; herself accused No. 3. Remaining four accused in the bridegroom, his mother as also the parents of the second birde were all convicted. Husband accused No. 1 was convicted under section 494 and the remaining three under section 494 read the Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Gurbachan Singh No. 1 was awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fined Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine the convicted accused aforesaid was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Remaining three accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fined Rs. 500/- each for their conviction under section 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine everyone of them was ordered to undergo individually rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. Out of the fine amount on realisation 50% was ordered to be paid to complainant Smt. Devinder Kaur by way of compensation.

(2.) IN appeal learned lower appellate court vide its impugned judgment dated September 9, 1986 acquitted the four accused convicted by the learned trial Court as well. Complainant Smt. Devinder Kaur has, therefore, filed two Criminal Appeals bearing Nos. 91 and 92 DBA of 1987 against their acquittal. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 are arrayed as respondents in Criminal Appeal Nos. 91 and accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 92. Acquittal of accused No. 3 and 4 ordered by the learned trial Court on February 10, 1986 has not been assailed in this Court.

(3.) FOLLOWING the Supreme Court observations in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and another v. The State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1954, and Kewal Ram and others v. The Himachal Pradesh Administration, AIR 1966 SC 614, our own High Court observed in Darshan Singh v. The State of Punjab, Volume LXXXII-1980 Punjab Law Reporter 243 and over again in Resham Singh and another v. Kartar Singh and others, Volume LXXXVI-1983(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 497 : 1984 Punjab Law Reporter 78 :-