Bangalore District Court
Smt Sandhya T vs Sridhar K N And Others on 2 March, 2024
1 CC.No. 6726 /16
KABC030172992016
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2024
C.C. No.6726/2016
Present: SRI. B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR
B.A., LL.B.,
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
COMPLAINANT: Smt.Sandhya T
aged 33 years
W/o Sridhar K N
R/at.No.385, 10th cross,
Lakshmipura
K .G.Nagar, Bengaluru 19.
Rep.by Sri. PV Advocate
V/s.
Accused 1. Sri Sridhar K.N
Aged 40 years
S/o Nagaraja K.N
2. Sri Nagaraja K.R
Aged 64 years
S/o K S Ramakrishnaiah
2 CC.No. 6726 /16
3. Smt.Munirangamma
Aged 60 years
W/o Nagaraja K R
4. Smt.Kavitha
Aged 39 years
W/o Ramamurthy
5. Smt Latha
Aged 37 years
W/o Vasu
6. Sri Ramamurthy
Aged 37 years
7. Sri Vasu
aged 41 years
Accused No.2 to 7 are R/at.No.698,
Opp to Mohan Theatre
3rd main, Lakshman Nagar
Hegganahalli Cross, Bengtaluru 66.
8. Smt.Shruthi
aged 24 years
W/o Sridhar K N
Accused No.1 and 8 are
R/at. 189/20, Near Hunasemara
Old Mysore Road, Kumbalgodu
Post, Bengaluru 74.
Note: Case against A2 to 7
dismissed vide order dated
04-03-2016
Rep.by Sri.N.S Advocate
3 CC.No. 6726 /16
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 20.11.2005
OF OFFENCE
DATE OF ARREST OF THE : Accused No.1 and 8 are on bail
ACCUSED
OFFENCES ALLEGED : U/s.193, 415, 420, 494 R/w.149
of IPC.
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 27.01.2018
OF EVIDENCE
DATE OF CLOSING OF : 23.02.2022
EVIDENCE
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Found not guilty
(B.C.CHANDRASHEKAR)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The complainant has filed this private complaint
u/s.200 Cr.p.c against accused No.1 to 8 for the
offences punishable u/s. 193, 415 420 and 494 r/w149
of IPC .
2. Brief facts of the case of the complainant are that
the marriage of the complainant with accused No.1
was solomnized on 20.11.2005 at at Sri
Adhichunchanagiri Kalyana Mantapa as per Hindu rites
and custom in the presence of both family members
relatives and well wishers. The complainant has given
birth to a male child by name Samarth on 4.10.2006.
4 CC.No. 6726 /16
The complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused
No.1 and their marriage is still in existence. Accused
NO.2 and 3 are the in-laws of the complainant.
Accused NO.4 and 5 are the sisters of accused No.1.
Accused NO.6 and 7 are the brother in laws of accused
No.1. Accused No.8 is the 2nd wife of accused No.1.
3. It is further averred that accused No.1 had filed
divorce petition before the III Additional Family court
against the complainant in M.C. NO.2425/10 and it is
decreed on 17.6.13. The complainant has challenged
the same before the Honble High Court of Karnataka
in MFA NO.6993/13. The Honble High Court of
Karnataka was pleased to grant stay for execution of
judgment and decree. But accused NO.1 to 7 colluded
with each other and got married accused NO.8 with
accused No.1 with malafide intention and to cheat the
complainant. Accused No.1 has suppressed the facts
and filed false case before the family court and made
false allegations . Accused No.1 married accused No.8
only with instigation and support of accused NO.2 to 7.
The complainant got information about bigamy of the
accused No.1 a with accused NO.8 during the life time
of his 1st wife, and in the 1st week of January 2015
they have a child by name Haridhra Thus the accused
persons have committed the offence punishable under
5 CC.No. 6726 /16
Sec.193, 415, 420, 494 r/w 149 of IPC.
4. After filing of the complaint the complainant
has submitted the sworn statement and nine
documents are marked as Ex.P.1 to P.9. After being
heard the arguments this court has taken cognizance
only for an offence u/s.494 IPC against accused No.1
and 8 only and dismissed the case against accused
No.2 to 7. Thus this criminal case registered only
against accused No.1 and 8 and issued the process.
5. In response of summons issued by this court,
accused No.1 and 8 have appeared through their
counsel and filed bail application. Accordingly, accused
NO.1 and 8 have enlarged on bail. The copies of the
prosecution papers have furnished to the accused No.1
and 8 as contemplated u/s.207 of Cr.P.C. The
complainant submits evidence before charge and
examined as CW 1 and produced 9 documents as
Ex.P.1 to 9. On the basis of the above, charge for the
offences punishable u/s. 494 of IPC framed and read
over to accused No.1 and 8 in the language best known
to them. Accused No.1 and 8 not pleaded guilty and
claims to before the court tried. Hence, matter taken
up for trial.
6. The complainant has requested to consider the
evidence before charge as complainant evidence.
6 CC.No. 6726 /16
Accordingly, the complainant herself got examined as
Pw1 and got marked nine documents as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P9. Later on Accused NO.1 and 8 have been
examined u/s.313 Cr.PC and recorded their statement.
Accused NO.1 and 8 have denied the complainant
evidence as false. Thy have not chosen to submit their
defence evidence. However during the course of cross
examination of PW 1 got marked Ex.D1.
7. Heard the arguments of both the counsels
Perused.
8. On the basis of the above, the following points
have arises for my consideration : -
1) Whether the prosecution
proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that the complainant is the
legally wedded wife of accused
No.1 and during the subsistence of
their marriage and when
complainant was still living ,
accused no.1 got married with
accused NO.8 and accused No.8
has abated for 2nd marriage and
thereby accused No.1 and 8 have
committed an offence u/s.494 of
IPC ?
2) What order ?
7 CC.No. 6726 /16
9. My answer to the above points is as under;
Point No.1 - In the Negative
Point No.2-As per final order for the
following :
REASONS
10. Point No.1 :According to the complainant
she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1. Their
marriage was solemnized on 4.10.06 Till today their
marriage is in subsistence. Inspite of that accused No.1
has got 2nd marriage illegally with accused No.8 and
thereby they have committed an offence u/s.494 of IPC.
In order to prove the guilt of the accused NO.1 and 8,
the complainant herself got examined as PW 1 . She
has deposed before the court that the accused No.1 is
her husband and her marriage is solemnized with the
accused NO.1 on 20.11.05 at Adhichunchanagiri
Kalyana Mantapa, Vijaynagar, Bangalore as per the
Vokkaliga customs. After the marriage they have been
living together for about 2 to 3 years in the house of
accused No.1. Due to their wed lock a child by name
Samarth was born to them. After 1 ½ years, of birth
of her son, the accused NO.1 and his parents used to
pick up quarrel by saying that her hair is not lengthy
and her parents have not solemnized the marriage in a
8 CC.No. 6726 /16
proper form and her husband used to assault on her.
At that time she was doing job in the private firm and
her husband used to take all her salary and he used to
keep her ATM Card. In the month of December 2008
since her husband assaulted her and she was unable
to bear the torture , she went to her parental house
and till today she is in her parental house.
11. PW 1 has further deposed that since 2008 to
2010 her husband has not tried to take her back with
him. In the year 2010 he filed a petition before the
Family Court in M.C. No.2425/10 . The court has
granted divorce and dissolved their marriage. But
during the pendency of divorce petition before the family
court, her husband got second marriage with accused
NO.8. PW 1 has deposed that she has challenged the
judgment and decree of the Family court before the
Honble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.6993/13
and took stay order for judgment and decree of the
family court. During subsistence of her marriage with
accused No.1, he has got married with accused No.8
and one Haridhra has born to them.
12. PW 1 has produced their marriage invitation
card as Ex.P.1 . Ex.P.2 is the marriage registration
certificate of the complainant and the accused No.1.
Ex.P.3 and 4 are the judgment and decree in M.C.
9 CC.No. 6726 /16
No.2425/10. Ex.P.5 is the copy of the stay order
passed by Honble High Court in MFA no.6993/13.
Ex.P.6 to 8 are the photos of marriage of accused NO.1
with accused NO.8 with CD and Ex.P.9 is the Birth
Certificate of the daughter of accused No.1 and 8 one
Haridhra. Thus PW 1 has deposed the facts as above
and also produced documentary evidence. Except this
evidence, the complainant has not examined any other
witness to substantiate her allegations.
13. The accused persons have not choose to
submit any defence evidence. But during cross
examination of PW 1 they got marked the affidavit
submitted by the complainant before the Honble High
Court in MFA NO.6993/13 and she admits the same
and it is marked as Ex.D1.
14. It is an allegation of the complainant that
during subsistence of her marriage with accused NO.1
he got second marriage with accused NO.8 and they
have committed an offence punishable u/s.494 of
IPC.. Hence, the complainant is required to prove that
she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1.Further
she is required to prove that during subsistence of her
marriage , accused No.1, got 2 nd marriage with accused
No.8 as per the customs prevailing in their community
in the manner known to law. If these facts in issues
10 CC.No. 6726 /16
are proved, accused No.1 can be warranted conviction
for alleged offence and if at all the complainant
establish abatement of accused No.8 in getting 2 nd
marriage with accused No.1, she can be sentenced for
abatement. By considering the facts in issue, I once
again go through the evidence of the complainant /
PW1.
15. PW 1 has deposed that her marriage was
solemnized with accused No.1 on 20.11.05 at
Adhichunchanagir Kalyana Mantapa as per Vokkaliga
customs and due their wed lock a son by name
Samarth has begotten to them. The complainant has
produced the marriage invitation card as Ex.P1. Ex.P2
is the Registration Certificate which discloses that
marriage of the accused No.1 with the complainant was
solemnized on 20.11.05. Thus marriage registration
certificate clearly disclosing that marriage of the
complainant with accused No.1 was solemnized in the
manner known to law.
16. Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of the judgment in
M.C.No.2425/10 on the file of the III Addl & Prl.District
Judge, Family court , Bangalore . On perusal of the
same accused No.1 has filed this petition praying to
dissolve his marriage dt.20.11.05 and it was dissolved
vide order dt.31.10.2008 on the ground of cruelty.
11 CC.No. 6726 /16
Thus accused NO.1 has admitted that the complainant
is the legally wedded wife. However, factum of marriage
of the complainant by accused No.1 is not in dispute.
Hence, on going through the oral and documentary
evidence, there is no dispute that the complainant is
the legally wedded wife of accused No.l and their
marriage was solemnized on 20.11.05 as per the their
customs prevailing in their community.
17. The complainant being the wife of accused
No.1 has alleged that during the subsistence of their
marriage accused No.1 got 2 nd marriage with accused
No.8. But as per Ex.P.3 this petition is filed by the
accused No.1 for divorce on the ground of cruelty and
same has been allowed and marriage of the
complainant with accused No.1 solemnized on
20.11.05 has been dissolved. Under such
circumstances, the complainant is required to prove
that the accused No.1 got 2nd marriage with accused
No.8 as per the customs prevailing in their community
and that at the time of 2 nd marriage, their marriage was
still in subsistence. Before going through these facts in
issue , it is necessary to refer the provisions of Sec.494
of IPC which reads as under :
Sec.494 IPC :- Whoever, having a husband or
wife living, marries in any case in which such
12 CC.No. 6726 /16
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.
18. As per the above provisions, the accused
No.1 being the husband of the complainant , having
wife, if he got marriage again during the lifetime of his
wife , he shall be punished under the above provisions.
Since it is an allegation of bigamy, in order to warrant
conviction, the complainant is required to prove the
essential ingredients of penal provisions of law as
stated above. Before going to marshal her evidence at
this juncture, it is required to refer the decision of
the Honble Supreme Court in a decision reported in
1965 (2) SCR 837 between Bhaurao Shankar
Lokhande & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr in
para No.3 and 4 held as under :
3. Section 494 I.P.C. reads :
"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 descrip- tion for a
term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."
Prima facie, the expression 'whoever.... marries'
must mean 'whoever marries-validly' or
13 CC.No. 6726 /16
'whoever.... marries and whose marriage is a
valid one'. If the marriage is not a valid one,
according to the law applicable to the parties,
no question of its being void by reason of its
taking place during the life of the husband or
wife of the person marrying arises. If the
marriage is not a valid marriage, it is no
marriage in the eye of law. The bare fact of a
man and a woman living as husband and wife
does not, at any rate, normally give them the
status of husband and wife even though they
may hold themselves out before society as
husband and wife and the society treats them
as husband and wife.
4. Apart from these considerations, there is
nothing in the Hindu law, as applicable to
marriages till the enactment of the Hindu
Marriage Act of 1955, which made a second
marriage of a male Hindu, during the life-time
of his previous wife, void. Section 5 of the
Hindu Marriage Act provides that a marriage
may be solemnized between any two Hindus if
the conditions mentioned in that section are
fulfilled and one of those conditions is that
neither party has a spouse living at the time of
the marriage. Section 17 provides that any
marriage between two Hindus solemnized after
the commencement of the Act is void if at the
date of such marriage either party had a
husband or wife living, and that the provisions
of ss. 494 and 495 I.P.C. shall apply
accordingly. The marriage between two Hindus
is void in view of s. 17 if two conditions are
satisfied : (i) the marriage is solemnized after
the commencement of the Act; (ii) at the date of
such marriage, either party had a spouse
living. If the marriage which took place
14 CC.No. 6726 /16
between the appel- lant and Kamlabai in
February 1962 cannot be said to be
'solemnized', that marriage will not be void by
virtue of s. 17 of the Act and s. 494 I.P.C. will
not apply to such parties to the marriage as
had a spouse living. L4Sup./65-7 The word
'solemnize' means, in connection with a
marriage, 'to celebrate the marriage with
proper ceremonies and in due form', according
to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. It follows,
therefore, that unless the marriage is
'celebrated or performed with proper
ceremonies and due form' it cannot be said to
be 'solemnized'. It is therefore essential, for the
purpose of s. 17 of the Act, that the marriage to
which s. 494 I.P.C. applies on account of the
provisions of the Act, should have been
celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due
form. Merely going through certain ceremonies
with the intention that the parties be taken to
be married, will not make them ceremonies
Prescribed by law or approved by any
established custom.
19. As per the dictum of the Honble Supreme
Court, the words used in the provision under Sec.494
of IPC whoever marries means whose marriage is valid
one. If the marriage is not valid one according to law
applicable to the parties, there is no question of its
being void by reasons of it taking place during the life
time of husband or wife of the person marrying arises. If
the marriage is not valid one, it is no marriage in the
eyes of law. If a man and women are living together, it
15 CC.No. 6726 /16
will not give the status of husband and wife. However,
if the marriage is performed or celebrated without
proper ceremonies as per the customs, it cannot be
considered that the marriage was solemnized and
such marriage must be celebrated with proper
ceremonies and in due form.
20. Honble Supreme Court in a decision reported
in AIR 1979 SC 713 Gopal Lal v/S State of Rajasthan it
is held as under:
The essential ingredients of which are: (i) that
the accused spouse must have contracted the
first marriage (ii) that while the first marriage
was subsisting the spouse concerned must
have contracted a second marriage, and (iii)
that both the marriages must be valid in the
sense that the necessary ceremonies required
by the personal law governing the parties
had been duly performed
21. Similarly, Honble Supreme Court in another
decision reported in AIR 2001 SC 3576 in between
S.Nagalingam V/s Shivagami while considering the
provision of Sec.494 of IPC it is held as here under. :
The essential ingredients of the offence
u/s.494 IPC are that (1) accused must
have contracted first marriage, (ii) whilst
the first marriage was subsisting, the
accused must have contracted a second
marriage and (iii) both the marriage must
be valid in the sense that necessary
16 CC.No. 6726 /16
ceremonies governing the parties must
have been performed.
22. In view of the dictum of Honble Supreme
Court and as per the provisions of 494 IPC, in order to
prove offence of bigamy, firstly, factum of 2 nd marriage
is to be established and it means to prove like any
other fact with acceptable legal evidence. Secondly,
the complainant is required to prove that the 2 nd
marriage was solemnized in due form as per the
customs and ceremonies prevailing in their community.
Thirdly , the complainant is required to prove that
both the marriages ie the 1 st and the 2nd marriage are
valid marriages solemnized as per the ceremonies
prevailing in their community. If the 2 nd marriage is
proved to be solemnized as per the ceremonies
prevailing in their community and if it is found to be
valid marriage , then as per Sec.17 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, it is clear that 2 nd marriage become void
which took place during the life time of the complainant
/ spouse of one of the parties of the marriage and the
2nd marriage become an offence u/s.494 of IPC. By
keeping the principles of this law, I carefully gone
through the evidence placed by the complainant to
ascertain whether the complainant has proved bigamy
as per the provision as discussed above.
17 CC.No. 6726 /16
23. The complainant while examining as PW 1
has deposed that since her husband assaulted on her ,
as she was unable to bear the torture, she gone to her
parental house. Since 2008-10 , he has not made any
effort to take back her to marital house. But in the
year 2010 he filed divorce petition before the family
court in M.C.No.2425/2010. Said petition has allowed.
But during the pendency of the petition itself, accused
No.1 got 2nd marriage with accused No.8. She has filed
an appeal before the Honble High Court of Karnataka
in MFA No.6993/13 challenging the judgment and
decree of the family court. Thus, marriage of accused
No.1 and 8 is during subsistence of her marriage with
accused No.1 . On meticulous verification of entire
evidence , she has not deposed the date when accused
NO.1 got 2nd marriage with accused NO.8 and whether
exactly their marriage is solemnized or performed.
24. The complainant has produced 8 documents.
Ex.P.1 is the marriage invitation . Ex.P2 is the marriage
registration certificate. Ex.P3 and 4 are the judgment
and decree in MC No.2425/10. Ex.P.5 is the order
sheet which discloses that the complainant has filed an
MFA before the Honble High Court of Karnataka
challenging the judgment of the family court. Ex.P.6
to 8 are the photos and the CD. Ex.P.9 is the birth
18 CC.No. 6726 /16
certificate of Haridhra. Thus Ex P 1 to 5 discloses
about her relationship with accused NO.1 . On perusal
of Ex.P.6 and 7, the photographs , it is contended by
the complainant that the lady who is standing with
accused No.1 is accused No.8 with her daughter. Ex.P.9
is the CD of the photos. During cross examination
counsel for accused No.1 has totally denied genuines of
the photos and suggested that said photos have been
produced by editing. Further the complainant has
produced the CD of said photos. But the complainant
has not produced the Certificate u/s 65 of the Evidence
Act to establish the contents of the CD and to
establish that the photos are genuine one and it can be
accepted under the Indian Evidence Act.
25. It is significant to note here that even for a
moment if it is believes that Ex.P.6 and 7 , the photos
are genuine one, it just discloses that the accused No.1
was standing with some person and one lady is
standing with accused No.1 but it is not disclosing that
she is the wife. Under such circumstances, mere
production of photos are not a proof of marriage for the
simple reason that those photos are not marriage
phots. Hence, by virtue of photographs, this court is
not able to accept that accused No.1 got 2 nd marriage
with accused No.8 as per the customs prevailing in
19 CC.No. 6726 /16
their community.
26. The complainant has produced the birth
certificate of one Haridhra which discloses that the
father name is Sridhar and the mother's name is
Shruthi. Counsel for the complainant has argued
that because accused NO.1 got 2nd marriage with
accused No.8, a daughter has begotten to them and it is
the birth certificate of their daughter and it can be
accepted that it is a result of 2nd marriage and
requested to punish the accused u/s.494 of IPC. At this
stage the counsel for accused NO.1 has relied upon the
unreported decision of Honble High Court of Orissa in
Dhara Dei V/s Prafulla Swain and Ors. In Crl.A.NO.255
/1981 dt.29,06,1984 wherein the Honble High Court of
Orissa was pleased to held that The birth certificate of
a persons does not prove the marriage between the
persons named as father and mother in the birth
certificate. IN view of the decision of the Honble High
Court of Orissa, merely because the complainant has
produced the birth certificate and it contains the
name of Accused No.1 and 8 as father and mother, it
does not means to say that it is the proof of their
marriage in the manner known to law. Accordingly,
mere production of birth certificate itself is not a proof
of marriage between accused No.1 and 8 as per their
20 CC.No. 6726 /16
customs . At best it is a proof that one Haridhra is born
to Sridhar and Shruthi. Hence, this court decline to
accept the contention of the complainant that the
accused No.1 and 8 are the husband and wife and their
marriage was solemnized as per their customs.
27. Further , during cross examination PW 1
admits that:
ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಎರಡನೇ ಮದುವೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಆತನ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಕರು
ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದ ರು ಅದರ ಜೊತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆತನ ತಂಗಿಯ
ಗಂಡ ವಾಸು ಎನ್ನು ವವರು ಸಹ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು ,
ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿ ಹೋಗಿ ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದಾಗ , ಎರಡನೇ
ಮದುವೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
She further admits that :
ಆರೋಪಿ ಎರಡನೇ ಮದುವೆಗೆ ನಾನು ಹೋಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ . ಆರೋಪಿಗೆ
2010 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲ್ಲೂ ರಿನ ಆಂಜನೇಯ ಸ್ವಾಮಿ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದಲ್ಲಿ
ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ ನೆನಪು ಇಲ್ಲ . ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನದಲ್ಲಿ
ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದಾಗ , ಮದುವೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ
ಇಟ್ಟು ಕೊಳ್ಳು ವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನೇತ್ರಾವತಿ ಎನ್ನು ವವರು
ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಎರಡನೇ ಮದುವೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗಿಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ಆತನ ಮದುವೆಯ ಕಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ಆತನ ತಂದೆ-ತಾಯಿಗಳು ಸಹ ಇದ್ದ ರೂ
ಸಹ ಮದುವೆಗೆ ಹೋದವರು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. 1 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ
ಎರಡನೇ ಮದುವೆ ಕಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ಸಪ್ತಪದಿ ತುಳಿದಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನೇತ್ರಾವತಿ
ನನಗೆ ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಎರಡನೇ ಮದುವೆ
ಸಮಾರಂಭದ ಫೋಟೋವನ್ನು ನಾನು ಹಾಜರು ಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಆದರೆ
ಆತ ತನ್ನ ಎರಡನೇ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಮಗುವಿನ ಜೊತೆ ನಿಂತಿರುವ
ಫೋಟೊವನ್ನು ಹಾಜರು ಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ.
28. In view of the above admission , because her
relatives and brother in law of accused No.1 have
intimated her over phone, she is making allegation of
21 CC.No. 6726 /16
2nd marriage. Further according to her evidence , she is
not a witness to the 2nd marriage as she has not
participated in the marriage Further she admits that
the marriage took place in the year 2010 at Kollur
Anjeneya Swamy Temple. But she has no memory about
the date. Further she admits that when she enquired
with the temple authority , they told that they will not
keep any evidence about the marriage. Further admits
that because one Nethravathi who participated in the
marriage told her about 2nd marriage, she has made
allegation of 2nd marriage. Further she admits that
Nethravathi has not told her about sapthapadi at the
time of 2nd marriage. Accordingly, it is crystal clear
that there is no personal knowledge about 2 nd marriage
of accused No.1 with accused No.8 and she makes
allegation only because somebody have told her about
2nd marriage over phone. At least she does not know
the date of 2nd marriage.
29. The complainant has not produced any iota of
evidence to establish that the accused NO.1 got 2 nd
marriage with accused No.8 and performed their
marriage as per the customs prevailing in their
community. At least she is not having any knowledge
about sapthapadi at the time of 2 nd marriage which is
the custom of their community. In absence of any
22 CC.No. 6726 /16
acceptable materials she simply makes allegation about
bigamy without producing any acceptable evidence as
per law. Accordingly, the complainant has not
produced any iota of evidence at least to prove that
accused No.1 and 8 have got married as per their
customs. Hence, without producing any evidence, this
court is unable to believe that accused No.1 got 2 nd
marriage with accused No.8 and committed an offence
of bigamy.
30. On meticulous perusal of entire evidence
placed by the complainant , absolutely, there is no
material to believe factum of 2 nd marriage of accused
No.1 with accused No.8. Similarly absolutely, there is
no acceptable legal evidence to believe that alleged 2 nd
marriage is solemnized in due form as per the customs
and ceremonies prevailing in their community. Thus the
complainant has utterly failed failed to prove 2 nd
marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.8 and he
committed an offence of bigamy to punish him u/s 494
of IPC. When there is no material about 2 nd marriage
of accused No.1, then there is no question of
abatement of accused No.8 to punish her also for an
offence u/s.494 of IPC. Hence, this court is of the
considered opinion that the complainant has not at all
produced any iota of evidence to prove that during
23 CC.No. 6726 /16
subsistence of her marriage with accused NO.1, he got
2nd marriage with accused NO.8 and 2nd marriage was
solemnized as per the customs and ceremonies
prevailing in their community. Accordingly, the
complainant has utterly failed to prove the guilt of
accused No.1 and 8 beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly point under reference answered in the
Negative.
31. POINT NO.2 :
For the aforesaid reason and discussion, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 and 8 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s. 494 of IPC.
The bail bond executed by the accused No.1 and 8 stands cancelled.
However, Accused No.1 and 8 shall execute personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each by undertaking to appear before the Hon'ble Appellate Court, if any appeal is filed.
24 CC.No. 6726 /16It is not a fit case to award victim compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C., (Dictated to the stenographer, script transcribed by her and then corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 2nd day of March 2024).
(B.C.Chandrashekara) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW-1 : Smt.Sandhya T Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Copy of Wedding Invitation Ex.P2 : Copy of Registration certificate Ex.P.3 : Copy of the judgment in M.C.NO.2425/10 Ex.P.4 : Copy of the Decree Ex.P.5 : Copy of Stay order in MFA NO.6993/13 Ex.P.6 : Photo Ex.P.7 : Photo Ex.P.8 : CD Ex.P.9 : Birth Certificate.25 CC.No. 6726 /16
Witnesses examined for the accused: NIL Documents marked for the accused:
Ex.D.1 : Copy of Affidavit (B.C.Chandrashekara) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.26 CC.No. 6726 /16 27 CC.No. 6726 /16