Common Order :

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

Petitioner in Crl.Rc.No.386 of 2007 and 387 of 2007 is one and the same and she is de facto complainant in Cr. No.141 of 1996 in C.C.No.124 of 1997 registered against A1 to A13 under Sections 498-A and 494, 496 read with 34 IPC and 109 IPC.

2. Learned trial Court, after taking evidences from the prosecution witnesses, convicted A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC, A2 to A6, A8, A9 and A11 for the offence punishable under Section 494 read with 34 IPC and acquitted A7, A10, A12 and 13.

3. Against the order of conviction, separate criminal appeals were preferred before learned appellate Court, wherein learned appellate Court found A1 guilty for offence punishable under Sections 498-A along with 494 IPC and found A2 guilty for offence punishable under Section 494 IPC, in respect of A3 to A6, A8, A9 and A11, they were acquitted. The order of conviction against A1 and A2 was confirmed up to the Hon’ble Apex Court.

4. Three criminal revision cases were filed by de facto complainant before this Court. Crl.R.C.No.386 of 2007 is filed against A8 and A9, among them A8 has expired. Crl.R.C.No.387 of 2007 is filed against A3 to A6, among them A3 and A6 are expired. Crl.R.C.No.391 of 2007 is filed against A11, who has also expired. Now Crl.R.C.Nos.386 of 2007 and 387 of 2007 are pending for determination before this Court, as to whether order of acquittal of A4, A5 and A9 is justified.

5. Peculiar fact of this case is that A1 is husband of de facto complainant, A2 is lady with whom A1 have commenced second marriage. A3 to A5 are elder brothers of A1, A6 is the mother of A1, A8 and A9 are the parents of A2, A11 is the sister of A1.

6. Prosecution case is that de facto complainant/petitioner was given marriage to A1 on 26.06.1975, after marriage she was residing with A1 at matrimonial house, during their wedlock, one female child was born, who was aged about 20 years at the time of registering FIR. Later, A1 developed illicit intimacy with A2. A8 is the father of A2, who became ill and was not in a position to maintain his family, as such, A8 and A9 instigated illicit intimacy of A2 with A1 and also instigated A1 to marry A2. All the other accused persons were well known about illegal relationship and they all instigated A1 to marry A2 for second time. It has been alleged that due to their continuous instigation, A1 insisted de facto complainant to give consent his marriage with A2 for second time. De facto complainant denied such proposal on that A1 mercilessly beat her and also mentally harassed her. It has been alleged that on one occasion A1 attacked her with dragger and chappal and threatened her to sign on blank white paper, so as to, it may be converted to an agreement by which he can marry A2. It has been further alleged that all the relatives including accused persons are colluded with A8 and A9 thereby instigated A1 to marry A2 for second time.

7. The marriage between A1 and A2 was held on 26.01.1996, after the marriage of the accused persons came to matrimonial house of de facto complainant and forced her to allow A2 to stay with her, when she refused, A1 went elsewhere and put separate family. Since then, A1 stopped to look after de facto complainant and her daughter, for which, de facto complainant also filed civil suit being O.S.No.43 of 1996. Since A1 subjected de facto complainant with cruelty and married A2 second time in subsistence of his first marriage, she lodged a report to the police under Sections 498-A and 494 read with 34 IPC. Being elder brothers of A1, A4 and A5, and A9 being the mother of A2, are before this Court, against whom, learned appellate Court has passed favourable order by acquitting them from the charge. De facto complainant being petitioner has challenged the order of acquittal passed by the learned appellate Court.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that A4, A5 and A9 are found guilty by learned trial Court under Section 494 read with 3