Reshmi Kewtain vs State of Bihar and Another

D.P. Singh, J.—The present appeal has been preferred by the complainant of P.C.R. Case No. 11 of 1990 against the judgment and order of acquittal by which the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent from charge u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1994 by order dated 8th September, 1994.

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the complainant Reshmi Kewtain was married with respondent Shivlal Kewat for nearby six years when she was thrown out of the matrimonial house for non-fulfilment of dowry demands. She further asserted that on 28.2.1990 the respondent married with another lady Binda Kewtain. The complainant brought a complaint case against the respondent and the nine others on 9.4.1990. The learned CJM after inquiry took cognizance against the respondent only. The Trial Court, SDJM Sahibganj after examining witnesses charged the respondent u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent pleaded innocence, however he was held guilty of the charge and sentenced to serve RI for two years and a fine of Rs. 100 in PCR Case No. 11 of 1990 on 2nd May, 1994. The respondent preferred criminal appeal and the learned Sessions Judge, as mentioned above, finally held that the factum of second marriage could not be proved, as such the appeal was allowed setting aside the conviction of the respondent.

The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned Appellate Court has misconstrued the facts and did not consider the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5, which conclusively proved the allegation that the respondent has married during the life-time of the appellant. It is further asserted that the reliance placed by the learned Appellate Court on a decision in 1991 Crl. Law Journal 660 was misplaced. Therefore, the order of acquittal deserves to be set aside.

When the case was called out for disposal on merit no one appeared for the appellant. The learned Counsel for the respondent and State assisted the Court in disposal of the appeal on merit. According to this memo of appeal the required proof of performance of second marriage is misleading and the witnesses having asserted that they came to know about the second marriage should not have been accepted a valid piece of evidence.

I have gone through the material on record. P.W. 1 was not produced for his cross-examination after the framing of charge. P.W. 2 Anant Kewat asserted that he has seen the second marriage of the respondent. However, he admitted in cross-examination that the alleged marriage took place after two years of the complainant living with her father. P.W. 3 complainant Reshmi Kewtin has also admitted this fact. P.W. 4 Sakhilal Kewat is father of the complainant admittedly has not gone to the house of the respondent and he learnt about it from P.W. 2. P.W. 5 is another hearsay witness of the occurrence. One defence witness has asserted that the complainant was married with one Antu Kewat.

The materials on record show that complainant got married with Shivlal and she has been living with her father for last three years when the complaint case was filed. The allegation is that Shivlal married with another lady when complainant was living with her father but the proof of the marriage is not available on the record. The learned Appellate Court has discussed this fact in Para 7 of the impugned judgment. I do not find any material on record to disagree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. Further more the impugned judgment is based upon reasonable grounds. Having considered the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not find any merit in this appeal.

Accordingly this appeal stand dismissed.