- (1.) N. S. Gupta, J. This is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 28-6-1982 passed by Sri Prahlad Narain the then District Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1982, dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction of the applicant-revisionist under Section 494, I. P. C. and sentence of two years R. I. and fine of Rs. 2,009 imposed by the Munsif Magistrate, VIII Gorakhpur in Case No. 1298 of 1981 as per his judgment and order dated 24-3-1982. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows.
(2.) THE opposite party Smt. Maya Devi, PW 6 filed a criminal complaint on 20-7-1976 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur with the allegations that she was a legally wedded wife of accused revisionist Anil Kumar Srivastava. Having been married with him according to Hindu reties on 9th July, 1970. A son was born to her out of her union with the accused revisionist Anil Kumar Srivastava. THE com plainant pleaded that at the time of her marriage, the revisionist was employed in the Income Tax Department at Maradabad. He became addicted to intoxication. His services were subsequently terminated, because of the bad habit. He started misbehaving with the complainant. His mother Smt. Shanti Devi contributed to the atrocities of the accused revisionist. THE accused-revisionist had gone to the extent of assaulting the complainant and threatening to kill her and her son. THE complainant maintained that the accused revisionist in connivance with his parents re-married with Smt. Asha Devi in the intervening night of 13/14-7-1975. As many as eight persons were arrayed as accused in the original complaint. They were, (1) Anil Kumar: Srivastava, the accused revisionist, (2) Smt. Asha Devi, second wife of Anil Kumar, (3) Narvedeshwar Prasad, who is since died, father of the accused revisionist (4) Shanti Devi, mother of the accused, (5) Mahadeo, Mama of the accused, (6) Satyawati, Mami, of the accused (7) Chandrika Lal, father of the second wife Srnt. Asha Devi, (8) Janki Devi, mother of Asha Devi. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Magistrate, Gorakhpur found only accused revisionist Anil Kumar guilty of an offence punishable under Section 494, I. P. C. He vide his judgment and order dated 24-3-1982 convicted and sentenced the accused revisionist as afore said. On appeal, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate against the accused revisionist were maintained by the then Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur as per his judgment and order dated 28-6-1982. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, the accused revisionist Anil Kumar has come up in revision before this Court.
(3.) I have heard Sri K. C. Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vijai Bahadur learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Maya Devi and Additional Government Advocate for the State, considered their contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. It was urged by the learned counsel for the accused-revisionist that the complainant failed to establish the second marriage of the accused-revisionist Anil Kumar with Smt. Asha Devi. It was argued on behalf of the revisionist that the complainant failed to prove that the accused Anil Kumar and Smt. Asha Devi jointly took seven steps before the sacred fire and performed Saptapadi, the necessary ceremony for the performance of marriage in accordance with Hindu Law, were not established and, as such, the conviction of the accused revisionist under Section 494, I. P. C. was illegal and improper.;