I.P.Singh - (1.) SMT. Pyari Devi alias Lalti Devi complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of Sri Jitendra Srivastava, Vth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mirzapur, passed in Criminal Case No. 958 of 1976 on 2-11-1977 acquitting Ramanand accused for the offence punishable under section 494 IPC and Sadanand, Ramjt Singh, SMT. Dularia and Kattal accused persons for an offence punishable under sections 494/109 IPC.
(2.) THE complaint case of Smt. Pyari Devi alias Lalti Devi is that she was the wedded wife of Ramanand accused. A daughter was born to her from the wedlock. She was then three years old. After the birth of the daughter she was sent away by her husband Ramanand appellant with her brother. It was alleged that prior to that Ramanand was maltreating her by abusing and beating her. He was often threatening to burn or turn out of the house. Not even that he would boldly proclaim that he would marry a second wife. It was alleged that on 2-10-1976 Ramanand took Smt. Dulariya accused as his second wife. THE marriage ceremony was performed at 9 p. m. in village Basari at the house of Kattal accused in accordance with Hindu rites. She further alleged that all the five accused fully knew that the complainant was the first wife of Ramanand accused yet all of them conspired together (abetted Ramanand) to perform the second marriage of Ramanand. Accordingly the complainant filed a complaint against the five accused under section 494 read with section 109 IPC. She named witnesses in the complaint. The five accused persons pleaded not guilty. Smt. Dulariya accused in her statement under section 313 CrPC disclosed that she was married to one Raj Narain of Khajgipur who was still alive. She had nothing to do with Ramanand. Kattal accused also denied the allegations meaning thereby that no marriage of Ramanand with his daughter Smt. Dularia was performed in his house. It was pleaded that the whole case was set up to defame them. Ramanand accepted that Smt. Pyari Devi complainant was his wedded wife. He, however, denied to have married Smt. Dulariya. The learned Magistrate on the admission of Ramanand held that Smt. Pyari Devi was his wedded wife. He directed himself to the question as to whether Ramanand had taken Smt. Dulariya as his second wife. He took into account the evidence of the witnesses, produced by the complainant. They are four in number. The first witness is Smt. Pyari Devi herself. She has stated in her cross-examination that she has been living in her parents' house for the last 6 or 7 years. Of course, she has no personal knowledge about the alleged second marriage of Ramanand. She has even stated that Smt. Dulariya is living with Ramanand in his house as his wife brat in the circumstances this knowledge is bound to be based on hearsay i.e., no legal evidence. The other three witnesses Sidhnath (PW 2), Bechai (PW 3) and Bhaggu (PW 4) had claimed that they had attended the said marriage of Ramanand with Smt. Dulariya. They had gone from the side of Ramanand to the house of Kattal accused and there the marriage of Ramanand was performed with Smt. Dulariya the daughter of Kattal, in their presence.
(3.) THE requirement of law is that the second marriage should be proved to have been performed with all the ceremonies required of the legal marriage. THE witnesses say that at the time of said marriage Yedi was put up, Havan was performed and Bhanwars were taken. According to Sidhnath (PW 2), and Bechai (PW 3) 7 Bhanwars were taken while according to Bhaggu (PW 4) 5 or 6 Bhanwars were taken. Not a single word was said about Saptpadi which is an essential ceremony for completing a Hindu marriages. No Pandit who would have performed that marriage, has been examined. THE learned Judicial Magistrate also pointed out that previously there had been litigation of Ramanand with Bhaggu (PW 4) and Bechai (PW 3). For all these reasons he disbelieved the prosecution allegations about second marriage of Ramanand with Smt. Dulariya. Accordingly the accused persons were acquitted. The above appreciation of evidence would show that the view taken by the learned Munsif-Magistrate is not perverse that could not be taken by a reasonable prudent person. The acquittal recorded by the court below, therefore, does not call for any interference.;