M.P.Saxena - (1.) THIS is an appeal by Mufid complainant against the judgment and order dated 22-3-1976 passed by the Munsif Magistrate Shahganj at Jaunpur, acquitting Noor Jahan and Mumtaz respondents Nos. 1 and 5 of the charge under Section 494 IPC and Asad Ali, Smt. Rashidan, Mualana Rahman, Iltaza and Smt. Jainatul respondents nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the charge under section 494 read with 109 IPC.
(2.) THE case arose on a complaint filed by Mufid appellant alleging that he was married with Smt. Noor Jahan about nine years back and she lived with him and performed marital obligations when in 1973 her father Asad Ali and brother Jamil took her away on the pretext that her mother Smt. Rashidan, respondent no. 3, was ill and wanted to see her. Sometime, mother and brother of Smt. Noor Jahan refused to send hen. On 15-3-1974 he learnt that her father and mother were going to marry her with Mumtaz respondent no. 3. THErefore, accompanied by his father and certain witnesses he went to the south of the village Usarhata and saw Maulana Rahman respondent no. 4 performing her nikah with Mumtaz respondent. THE other respondents were present there. On these allegations the said complaint was filed. The respondents denied the said charge and gave out that Smt. Noor Jahan was divorced by Mufid and then she was married to Mumtaz. It may be stated here that Asad Ali and Smt. Rashidan respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother respectively of Smt. Noor Jahan, respondent no. 1. Iltaza respondent no. 6 is the father-in-law of Jamil son of Asad Ali. Mumtaz respondent no. 5 with whom Smt. Noor Jahan is said to have married second time is the brother of Iltaza. Smt. Jainatual, respondent no. 7 is the sister of Mumtaz and Iltaza. Her daughter is married to the son of elder brother of Asad Ali. In this manner all these respondents are connected with each other. Maulana Rahman, respondent no. 4, is one who is alleged to have performed the nikah of Smt. Noor Jahan with Mufid complainant and then with Mumtaz respondent No. 5.
(3.) AFTER going through the evidence; on the record the learned trial' court came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove both the marriages in the manner prescribed and acquitted the respondents. The relevant portion of section 494 IPC reads as follows :- "Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and, shall also be liable to fine.";