JASRAJ CHOPRA, J—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated May 4, 1978 wherby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondents Bisalaram, Chainaram, Mst. Shyokori, Malaram, Smt. Kasturi, Kanaram and Smt. Ladu of the offences under ss. 494 and 494 read with s. 109 IPC.

2. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant Rampyari is the married wife of accused Bisalaram. Her marriages with Bisalaram was performed on Chet Vadi-1 Samvat-2024 in village Kamasar according to Hindu customs and rites. She remained with him as his wife upto Samvat 2030. Later, it is alleged that Bisalaram bate her and turned her out of his house and on Pratham Bhadwa Sudi-11, Samvat 2031, accused Bisalaram performed his second marriage with Mst. Kastoori daughter of accused Kanaram in village Ramsisar. Accused Chainaram and Mst. Shyokori are the father and mother of accused Bisalaram. Malaram is the brother of accused Bisalaram. It is alleged that accused Chainaram, Shyokori and Malaram instigated accused Bisalaram to contract the second marriage. Accused-respondents No. 6 and 7 viz., Kanaram and Smt. Ladu are the father and m her of Smt. Kastoori. It is alleged that Kanaram and Smt. Ladu knowingly married Mst. Kastoori with Bisalaram that Bisalaram has already married Mst. Ram Pyari and hence, this complaint was filed against all these 7 accused persons. After enquiry under ss. 209 and 202 Cr. P. C, the case against all the 7 accused persons was registered and certain witnesses were examined and then charge under s. 494 IPC was framed against accused Bisalaram and charge under ss. 494 read with s. 109 IPC was framed against the remaining 6 accused-persons.

3. The complainant Mst. Ram Pyari examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of her case. The statements of the accused-persons were recorded under s. 313 Cr. P. C. The accused-persons took the plea that actually, the marriage of Mst. Kastoori has been performed with Ramuram, the younger brother of Bisalaram on that very date but not with Bisalaram. This is what has been stated by Ramuram as also by Mst. Kastoori and all other accused-persons. In support of their defence plea, the accused-persons have examined D.W. 1 Heera-ram, D. W. 2 Umaram and D. W. 3 Ramuram.

4. The learned lower court, after appreciating the evidence led in the case came to the conclusion that actually, Mst. Kastoori has been married with Ramu Ram and not with accused Bisalaram. It has held that the prosecution has failed to prove that Bisalaram has contracted the second marriage with Mst. Kastoori. It is against this Judgment that Mst. Rampyari has preferred this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. S. K. Goel, learned counsel for the complainant-appellant and Mr. Suresh R. Kumbhat, learned counsel for the accused-respondents. I have meticulously gone through the record of the case.

6. So far as complainant-appellant Mst. Rampyari is concerned, has not seen the marriage. She has only stated that she went to village Poolasar and there, she saw the marriage party going from village Ramsisar to village Bherusar. According to her,, the marriage party was going in a Bus. Initially, she said that it was going in a motor and there were 5 Baraties and loor, she stated that it was going in a bus containing 5 baraties and further in her cross-examination, she has stated that the Barat was going in a Jeep. The village Poolasar is at adist-ance of 5 miles from village Kamasar, the village of Mst. Rampyari. It is not known as to why she went to village Poolasar on that day. Moreover, she has stated that she saw the marriage party on Pratham Bhadwa Sudi-11, Samvat 2031 whereas, according to the statement of P. W. 9 Moolchand, the marriage party returned on the next day and, therefore, there was no question of her seeing the marriage party going to village Bherusar on that day. P. W. 9 Moolchand has further stated that his Jeep was hired from S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document