R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 13 -5 -2009, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gangapur City, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent Rishi Raj for the offence under Section 494 IPC, the complainant wife has approached this Court.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the complainant had filed a complaint against the Respondent and eight other persons before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg. According to her, she was married to the Respondent about thirteen years ago. However, as she was unable to bear a child, the Respondent decided to contract a second marriage. According to her, the Respondent contracted a second marriage with one Kalawati and fathered three children from her. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and took cognizance of an offence under Section 494 IPC. In order to buttress its case, the complainant examined two other witnesses. In defence, the Respondent did not examine any witness. After going through the evidence, the learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 13 -5 -2009, acquitted the Respondent. Hence, this petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently contended that the Petitioner Kajodi (P.W.1) in her examination -in -chief has clearly stated that her husband re -married with Kalawati and has fathered three children. However, without assigning any reason her testimony has been disbelieved by the learned Magistrate. Moreover, her testimony was corroborated by the testimony of her father Badri (P.W.2), but even his testimony has been disbelieved. Therefore, the impugned judgment is unsustainable.
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner, perused the impugned judgment, and considered the testimony of Kajodi (PW.1) and Badri (PW.2), as produced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.;