AMAR KAUR Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts giving rise to this Criminal Revision are that Surinder Kaur, the first wife of Jaswant Singh filed a complaint under sections 494/109/34 and section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, against Jaswant Singh and others. The trial Magistrate discharged Amar Kaur, second wife, and two others. Against the discharge order of the Magistrate, Surinder Kaur tiled a revision petition which has been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. Feeling aggrieved, Amar Kaur has preferred this revision petition. It came up before me on 22nd September 1983. On that day, none appeared for Surinder Kaur respondent. After hearing learned counsel for Amar Kaur, I allowed it. She then filed Cr. M. No. 6322 of 1983 for recalling the said ex-parte order. After notice to the counsel for Amar Kaur, I allowed the application.

(2.) I have now heard learned counsel for both the parties. So far as Amar Kaur is concerned, the Magistrate upon examination of as many as 10 witnesses produced by Surinder Kaur complainant and also the documents placed on record, came to the following conclusion: There is no evidence worth the name on the file that accused Amar Kaur has knowledge .of the first marriage of the complainant with the accused Jaswant Singh. Accused Amar Kaur is thus liable to be discharged on this account. On this score the proposition of law laid down in 1980 H.L.R. Page 288 is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

(3.) It is manifest from the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that be has not upset the conclusion of the trial Magistrate. The view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Amar Kaur being the lady whom Jaswant Singh married for second time raises a suspicion against her that she had knowledge of the first marriage, to say the least, is wholly untenable. It need hardly be said that even for suspicion there has to be some reasonable basis. Furthermore, a perusal of the authority of this Court relied upon the trial Magistrate appears to be on all fours and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has clearly failed to distinguish it.