Entries in birth registers and voters' lists are public documents and are admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Such entries are presumed to be correct and can be relied upon to prove the factum of marriage.

The appellant was the complainant in C.C. No. 236/73 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate II, Madurai. The appellant, Chellammal, has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate acquitting A. 1 of the offences punishable under S. 494, I.P.C. read with S. 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and A. 2 to A. 9 under S. 494. I.P.C. read with S. 109, I.P.C. and S. 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. It may be noted here that at the time when this appeal was admitted, it was admitted only as against respondents 1 and 2 and the appeal was dismissed as against the rest.

3. The facts which led to this criminal appeal, in brief, are as follows :- The appellant instituted this criminal complaint against the respondents on the allegation that she is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent (Angamuthu) their marriage having been performed as per Hindu rites and custom about 8 years ago, i.e. on 9-7-1965 at Kalloorani village, and that the said marriage is still subsisting. According to her, they belong to the Vellala Community and they do not have the customary right of dissolution of marriage. Out of the wedlock, a girl was born to the appellant through the first respondent and the girl was aged about 2 years on the date of presentation of the complaint.

4. While so, contrary to law and caste custom the first respondent Angamuthu contracted as second marriage with the second respondent, Ponnumayil Ammal, on 6-9-1973 in the temple of Sri Meenakshi Amman at Madurai. The other respondents also took active part in the celebration of the marriage between the first and second respondents, having fully known that the marriage between the appellant and the first respondent is still subsisting. The complainant in support of her case examined six witnesses (P.Ws. 1 to 6) including herself and marked Exhibits P. 1 to P. 4 Of the witnesses, P.W. 1 would speak about her marriage with the first respondent and birth of a child to her through her husband (the first respondent) about 2 1/2 years ago and about the subsistence of the marriage between them. She would further state that she came to know from her father Solamalai Pillai (P.W. 2) that the first respondent married the second respondent abetted by the other respondents in Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple at Madurai. P.W. 1 was not cross-examined before the charge was framed. But at the request of the accused she was further cross-examined after the charges were framed against them. P.W. 2, father of the appellant, would depose that his daughter (appellant) was given in marriage to the first respondent and the said marriage was solemnised by P.W. 6, Srinivasa Iyengar and both of them were living together for eight years and that a child was born out of the wedlock and the marriage is still subsisting. He would further state that after coming to know that the first respondent had married the second respondent on 23rd of Avani, he went to Sivaganga and got it confirmed that the information was true, and thereafter he went to the temple and took a certified copy of the marriage register from the temple and returned to village on Saturday. Respondents 1 to 9 also returned to the village on the next day only in the bus in which he travelled. Subsequently he caused the notice through his Advocate to be served on A. 1 to A. 5, but there was no reply from any one of the respondents. Ex. P. 1 dated 14-9-1973 is a copy of the notice. Ex. P. 2 is the original of the marriage register kept in the temple evidencing the marriage between the first and second respondents. As there was no reply from the respondents, according to him, this complaint was filed on 17-9-1973. He proves the signatures of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and 9 in Ex. P. 2. Ex. P. 3 is a true copy of Ex. P. 2 issued by the temple authorities. This witness also files Ex. P. 4 Showing the income and expenditure during the marriage between his daughter P.W. 1 and the