RABINDRA PRASAD VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.7.2000 passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bettiah, in Cr. Appeal No. 35/98, whereby the appellate Court confirmed the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, in Complaint case No. 219/85, trial No. 565/ 98. Revisionist No. 1 was convicted under Section 494, IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one year and revisionist No. 2 was convicted for the offence under section 494 read with Section 109, IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 3 month.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the revisionist 'slawyer that in the lower Courts, there was sole evidence of PW 1, barber, who was examined exactly on the point of marriage of revisionist No. 1 with the daughter of revisionist No. 2. Other witnesses are just hearsay witnesses, regarding marriage of petitioner. The alleged 2nd wife of revisionist No. 1, Nanda Devi, was examined as DW 2. who denied her marriage with revisionist No. 1. Accused -revisionist No. 2 was examined and he said that he had married his daughter to one Rajni Kant Verma from whose wedlock a son was born. In this connection, it was alleged that the hospital records were forged rather manipulated to show the son of Nanda Devi, as the son of one Rajni Kant Verma, Whatever may be the case, the simple point before the lower Court was as to whether there was sufficient evidence regarding 2nd marriage of revisionist No. 1 specially with the daughter of revisionist No. 2. The trial Court convicted the accused -regisionist on the basis of the evidence on record, which I have already stated, as submitted by the revisionist lawyer.

(3.) SO the Court should not have recorded an order of conviction on assumption or presumption, when the lady in question denied her marriage with Rabindra Prasad Verma (Revisionist No. 1).