Decided on June 25,2013

USHA DEVI Appellant
State of Uttaranchal and others Respondents


- (1.) On a complaint filed by the complainantappellant, proceedings were initiated against the accused persons, namely Shesraj Singh, Nathi Ram, Smt. Bijma Devi, Ranvira, Vinod, Smt. Babli and Pancha in respect of offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC read with Section 109 of IPC. After recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons were summoned to face the trial complained of against them. When they appeared, charge was framed against them on 05.10.1999. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
(2.) Pw1 Smt. Usha Devi, PW2 Satpal, PW3 Mehar Chand, PW4 Attar Singh, PW5 Pratap Singh Rawat (Registration Department) and PW6 Gainda Singh, Advocate, were examined on behalf of the complainant. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, vide impugned order dated 04.09.2001, exonerated the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved against said order, present criminal appeal was filed by the complainant.
(3.) Pw1 Smt. Usha Devi (complainant), in her exaination-in-chief, said that the accused Nathi Ram solemnized second marriage on 20.05.1995, at 07:00 A.M., at Daksha Prajapati Mandir, Kankhal, Haridwar with Bijma, with the connivance of co-accused. All the accused knew it fully well that PW1 was the legally wedded wife of Nathi Ram and no divorce took place with her (complainant). In the cross-examination under Section 246 of Cr.P.C., PW1 said that she received the information of such second marriage of Nathi Ram on 20.05.1995 itself, but she did not complain of such act to anybody. It is to be noted here that the criminal complaint case was filed by PW1 on 02.01.1996, after about seven months of the alleged incident. PW1 also admitted that the witnesses, who saw the second marriage, did not tell her the mode of marriage.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.