The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the importance of presenting consistent and sufficient evidence to support the allegations.

RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

1. The unsuccessful private complainant is the appellant herein. The appellant is the wife of the first accused/first respondent herein. The second accused is the second wife of the first accused as has been alleged in the complaint and the third accused is the mother-in-law of the appellant/private complainant. The fourth accused is the sister of the first accused and sixth accused is the father of the second accused and seventh accused is the mother of the second accused.

2. The appellant herein has preferred a private complaint for the alleged offence punishable under section 494 read with Section 109 of IPC and under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the accused. According to the appellant, the marriage between her and the first accused was solemnized on 10.04.1989 and out of the wedlock, one Son and one Daughter have born. During the subsistence of the said legal wed lock, the son born to the de-facto complainant and the first accused died due to medical complications at the age of 13. After the death of the son, the matrimonial relationship between the private complainant/appellant and first accused/first respondent got strained. Taking advantage of the same, the accused 2 to 6 subjected the appellant to matrimonial cruelty in various forms and the appellant. Notwithstanding the same, the appellant, taking into consideration the interest of the surviving daughter, did not question any of the acts of the accused. While so, during the subsistence of the marriage between the appellant and the first accused, the first accused married the second accused and such marriage was solemnised at the instance of the accused 3 to 7 and hence, the private complaint was filed by the appellant herein.

3. To substantiate the averments made in the complaint, the appellant examined herself as PW1 apart from herself, three other witnesses as PW2 to 4 and Exs. P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the accused, neither a witness was examined nor any document marked.

4. On behalf of the appellant, PW2, Priest was examined, who according to the appellant had performed the marriage between the first and second accused on 01.09.2004 as per the Hindu rites and customs. PW3 - Jagadeesan was a resident of Marudur. According to PW3, on 01.09.2004, he went to the Pidaari Amman Temple and witnessed the marriage solemnised between the first and second accused. PW4 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station who registered a case in Crime No. 3 of 2005 on the basis of the complaint given by the appellant herein. As per the complaint, the appellant was driven out of the matrimonial home by the first accused and his mother and later, she came to know that the first accused was given in marriage to the second accused. Therefore, she has given the complaint to PW4 requesting to take action against the accused for having contracted the marriage between the first and second accused during the subsistence of her marriage with the first accused.

5. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence adduced before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, by an order dated 07.08.2008, the trial court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including that of the appellant and thereby acquitted the accused. Hence, the appeal is filed by the appellant herein.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the private complainant/appellant would contend that the Trial Court ought to have convicted the respondents since the evidence of PW2, who is the Poojari, who conducted the marriage clearly proves the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC. According to the learned counsel, the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents, since, the ingredients of offence under Section 494 r/w 109 of IPC is made out against the respondents and the judgment is against criminal law and jurisprudence. The trial court failed to notice that PW2 was the Priest, who performed the marriage b