B. N. MALLIKARJUNA, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision under S. 397 of Cr. P. C. A-1, 3 and 4 in C. C. 102/85 in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge and C. J. M. , Shimoga and appellants in Cr. A. 49/88 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge at Shimoga have called in question the legality and correctness of their conviction under S. 494 r/w S. 109 of IPC. Respondent in the revision is the complainant. Another lady Mukta Bai, who was A-2 was acquitted by the trial Court. I shall hereinafter refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the complaint. Learned trial Judge convicted A-1 under S. 494, IPC and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer R. I. for two months, further convicted A-3 and 4 parents of A-1 under S. 494 and 109, IPC but released them under S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act after taking bond from each one of them undertaking to keep good behaviour for a period of 2 years and to receive sentence when they are called upon to do so. A-2 Mukta Bai was acquitted. Complainant Satyavati also filed Cr. A. No. 54/88 for enhancement of sentence. Learned District Judge who took up the appeals 48/88 and 54/88 together, by judgment dated 7-4-1992 dismissed both the appeals. Accused-revision petitioners have called in question the correctness of the said conviction and sentence.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are : A-1 Sridhar G. Jingade, A-2 Mukta Bai, A-3 Gangadhar S. Jingade and A-4 Susheela Bai are Hindus and belong to the community called Bavasara Kshatriya. A-3 and 4 are the parents of A-1. Complainant Satyavati and A-1 Sridhar were married on 5-11-1981 at Shimoga and their marriage was solemnised as per the custom prevailing in their community, thereafter they lived together for some time and Satyavati gave birth to a female child on 24-7-1983 by the said wedlock. In the mean time, differences arose between the husband and wife, husband wanted the complainant to go in for abortion, but she declined and as a result they fell apart and lived separately. A-1 was working as Senior Assistant in the Secretariat of the State Government and the complainant was working as a Lecturer being a post-graduate. FURTHER case of the prosecution is that the things as it stood on 7-6-1984 A-1 Sridhar married A-2 Mukta Bai (acquitted) and their marriage was solemnised at Sri Narasimha-swamy Devasthanam Sree Sibi in the District of Tumkur according to the customs prevailing in their community, all essential religious ceremonies were performed at the time of their marriage and the marriage between A-1 and 2 was celebrated clandestinely in collusion with A-3 and 4. Complainant's case is that her marriage with A-1 and as well the marriage of A-1 with Mukta Bai were celebrated as per the custom prevailing in their community, all essential religious ceremonies were performed and as such both the marriages were valid. Though the marriage between her and A-1 was subsisting A-1 has married A-2 for the second time and thus he has committed an offence punishable under S. 494, IPC. A-3 and 4 knowing that the marriage between A-1 and the complainant is subsisting, consciously took part in the second marriage of A-1, therefore, they are liable for punishment u/s. 494 r/w S. 109, IPC.

( 3 ) IT may be noted that on 7-8-1995 complainant Satyavati filed complaint under S. 200, Cr. P. C. before the Prl. Civil Judge and C. J. M. , Shimoga against the above-named 4 persons and also two others viz. , Gujjar Gangoji Rao and Tara Bai, it is stated that those A-5 and 6 are the parents of A-2 Mukta Bai. The Court on 12-8-1985 after recording the sworn statement of the complainant took cognizance of the offence only against A-1 to 4 for offences under Sections 494, 495 r/w Section 34, IPC. Thereafter recorded the statement of the complainant and few witnesses and by order dated 30-6-1987 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimoga was of the opinion that there is prima facie case to frame charge against A-1 a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document