The burden of proof in criminal cases lies with the complainant, and failure to provide sufficient evidence results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Kuldeep Tiwari, J. (Oral)

The instant application under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., seeking grant of leave to appeal, has been filed by the present applicant against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court concerned, in a private complaint No. 16 dated 20.9.2014, registered under Sections 494, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant, who is complainant, has proved charges by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which has not been appreciated by the learned trial court concerned, in its right perspective. He has further submitted that Mark-C3, which is the self suffered statement of Gurmeet Kaur accused-respondent no. 1, proved that she has solemnized second marriage during the life time of her husband Jugraj Singh (the present complainant-applicant). He has also submitted that the statement of Bhupinder Singh, who is an independent witness, and has stepped into the witness box as CW3, clearly proved the factum that Gurmeet Kaur has solemnized marriage with respondent No. 2-Ramesh Singh, on dated 28.7.2014. However, his evidence was also not considered by the learned trial court concerned, who, in fact, participated as a guest in the second marriage as solemnized between the respondents no. 1 and 2. Finally, he has submitted that the defence which the respondents-accused have taken before the learned trial court concerned, itself proved that the second marriage was solemnized, as they have relied upon a customary divorce, which, in fact, establishes that the respondents-accused, on the basis of that customary divorce, solemnized the second marriage on dated 28.7.2014.

3. This Court has examined the judgment passed by the learned trial court concerned. The complaint in the instant matter was filed by the applicant with the allegations that his marriage was solemnized with accused No.1, on dated 25.09.2012. However, she never liked the complainant and often used to leave the complainant's company because she wanted to marry someone else. He also filed petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against accused no.1 which was decided in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2014. However, inspite of the same, accused No.1 solemnized her second marriage with accused No.2, on dated 28.07.2014, without getting her first marriage dissolved. Other accused abetted the said marriage and Bhupinder Singh, son of Teja Singh, witnessed the said marriage being performed at village Kalotha, Tehsil Ratia. The said Bhupinder Singh also tried to intervene in the said marriage but accused refused to entertain/listen to him.

4. After preliminary evidence, respondents-accused were summoned to face trial under Sections 494 & 114 IPC. After pre-charge evidence, the charges were framed by the learned trial court concerned under Sections 494 & 108 IPC. Post-charge evidence, the complainant examined himself as CW-1, his father Mohinder Singh as CW-2 and also examined Bhupinder Singh as CW-3.

5. In defence, the respondents-accused examined Mani Singh as DW-1, and one Joginder Singh as DW2.

6. The learned trial court concerned, after considering the evidence led by both the parties, has held that the applicant has miserably failed to prove the solemnization of second marriage between Gurmeet Kaur and Ramesh Singh, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. The relevant observation of the learned trial court concerned is read as under:-

"After hearing learned counsel for complainant, learned defence counsel and after going through the case file properly and after taking into consideration the evidence led by complainant and cross-examination of the witnesses conducted by Ld. defence counsel, this Court is of the considered conclusion that complainant has miserably failed to prove his complaint against both the accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence b