The main legal point established is that the suppression of a previous marriage while marrying another person constitutes the offence of bigamy under Section 495 of IPC.

S.C. Das, J.

1. None appears for the petitioner though the case is fixed for hearing. This is the third occasion that the case is fixed for hearing.

2. The revisional application was filed in the year 2004 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, West Tripura, Agartala dated 21.02.2004, in Case No. CR 2355 of 2002 and was affirmed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by judgment dated 26.08.2004, passed in Criminal Appeal No.16(1) of 2004.

3. Heard learned Addl. P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh, appearing for the State respondent. Since the case is long pending and it is against an order of conviction and sentence in a criminal case, I think it should be disposed of on merit.

4. The brief fact is that the accused petitioner, Gopal Debnath married the complainant (respondent Putul Debnath) on 28th Falguna 1400 B.S., which corresponds to 13th of March, 1994, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, and thereafter, they live and cohabited as husband and wife in different places. While the complainant, Putul Debnath was residing with the accused petitioner, she came to learn that her husband married another woman, namely, Sipra Debnath long before and her husband suppressed that fact before her. On her query, the accused petitioner told that it was a rumor but thereafter the complainant received summon from the Court of law in a case, filed by Sipra Debnath vide Case No. CR 718 of 1994 under Section 494 of IPC, and thereafter, her husband left her in her parental house. Her husband, the accused-petitioner, later on compromised the case with his first wife, Sipra Debnath. The complainant, thereafter, filed the criminal case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, who has taken up trial, and on conclusion of trial, by impugned judgment dated 21.02.2004, found the accused-petitioner guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 495 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(rupees five thousand), in default, to suffer RI for six months.

5. Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, West Tripura, Agartala, dated 21.02.2004 in Case No. CR 2355 of 2002, the convict-petitioner, Gopal Debnath preferred criminal appeal No.16 (1) of 2004, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence before the Court of Session and learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by judgment dated 26.08.2004 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Magistrate.

6. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh has submitted that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court do not deserve interference by this Court unless it is clearly shown that the appreciation of evidence was perverse or that there was any illegality or impropriety apparent on the face of the record and that there was any irregularity in the proceeding. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Ghosh further submitted that he has meticulously gone through the judgment and there is nothing to be interfered in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. It is pointed out by learned counsel, Mr. Ghosh that the accused, Gopal Debnath married the complainant suppressing the fact that he had earlier married another woman and thereby committed the offence of bigamy and the punishment was appropriate and that should be upheld.

7. I have gone through the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. It appears that the learned Magistrate after recording evidence of the complainant framed charge against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 495 of IPC to which the accused-petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, th