LEELA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-complainant Leela Devi being aggrieved of the judgment dtd. 5/11/2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Appeal No. 50/1999, whereby the learned Appellate Court while giving benefit of doubt to the accused-respondents reversed the judgment dtd. 8/4/1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Marwar Junction in Criminal Original Case No. 1201/1992, whereby they had been convicted and sentenced as under:--

(2.) Succinctly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner-complainant Leela Devi filed a complaint under Ss. 494 and 494/109 IPC in the Trial Court stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent No. 2 Moolchand at Marward Junction in the year 1965 as per Hindu rites and customs and as such, she is his legally wedded wife. Respondents Mohan Lal and Chauthi Devi are the parents of the respondent No. 3 Bharti. It is alleged that despite the first wife being alive, second marriage of the respondent No. 2 Moolchand was solemnized with the respondent No. 3 Bharti in the year 1982 on the day of Aakhateej at Sabarkanta (Gujarat) and such an act is a penal offence under the IPC. The other respondents abetted in commission of the said offence by attending and helping in such marriage, therefore, they too have committed an offence under Sec. 494/109 IPC.

(3.) The learned Trial Court recorded evidence under Ss. 200-202 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance against the accused-respondents. Charge was framed for the offence under Sec. 494 IPC against respondent Moolchand and under Sec. 494/109 IPC against other accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At pre-charge stage, statements of five witnesses, namely, Leela Devi (PW-1), Bhanwar Lal (PW-2), Bakhtaram (PW-3), Laxman Bhai (PW-4) and Champalal (PW-5), were recorded. No further evidence was produced by the prosecution. The defence Counsel did not cross-examine the above witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. , in which they denied having committed any offence. No evidence was produced in defence. After appreciating the evidence and hearing the Counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dtd. 8/4/1999 convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents as noted above.