The complainant must prove the occurrence of a second marriage under Sections 494 and 496 IPC, including all essential rituals, which were not substantiated in this case.

JUDGMENT :

J. M. Khazi, J.

In this appeal filed under Section 378 (4) of the code of criminal procedure, complainant has challenge the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the accused No.1 by allowing the appeal filed by him, challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. Complainant is the wife of accused No.1. She filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against accused Nos.1 to 4, alleging offence punishable under sections 494, 496, 109 of IPC, contending that her marriage with accused No.1 was performed on 05.05.1992, and it was also registered before the registrar of marriage, Margoa, Goa on 23.04.1992. Her maiden name was Jyoti Tukaram Karekar. After her marriage, she was named as Deepa Ramanath Lotlikar by accused No.1. After the marriage, they stay together at Pedmen, Mapusa Taluku, Goa.

3.1 After few months, accused No.1 started harassing the complainant for dowry and acted roughly and cruelly. He subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty. He prevented her from going to her parental home, with great difficulty, she went to her parental home on 19.05.1993 for her first delivery. However, after the delivery accused No.1 refused to take her back to the matrimonial home. During late 1995 complainant came to know that accused No.1 has married accused No.2 on 16.07.1994. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of accused No.2. They knew that accused No.1 is already married.

3.2 After the marriage accused Nos.1 and 2 live together as husband and wife at Bilwan, Mapuca, Goa. accused No.2 has given birth to a son in May 1995. accused Nos.1 and 2 are living together along with their son. Even accused No.1 is masquerading accused No.2, as if she is Deepa Ramanath Lotlekar i.e., complainant and got prepared an election ID card and thereby all the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 494 , 496 and 109 IPC.

4. Vide order dated 17.01.2001, the trial Court has taken cognizance and ordered for registration of the criminal case.

5. On 17.01.2001, the trial Court has recorded the sworn statement of complaint and one Krishna Revankar. Based on their testimony, vide order dated 16.09.2004, the trial Court has ordered for issue of summons to accused persons.

6. The accused have appeared and secured bail.

7. The trial Court has recorded the evidence before charge by examining the complainant and four witnesses as PW-1 to 5. They are also cross examined by the accused at the stage of evidence before charge, except PW4.

8. Based on the evidence before charge, the trial Court held that there is sufficient material to frame charge. Accordingly on 20.11.2007, the trial Court has framed charge against accused Nos.1 to 4.

9. Accused Nos.1 to 4 have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

10. After framing of charge, the accused have cross examine PW1, 2, 3 and 5.

11. During the course of their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C , the accused have denied the incriminating evidence by the complainant.

12. Accused have not led any defensive evidence

13. Vide judgment and order dated 21.07.2008, though the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4, it convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine Rs.5,000/- with the