Delhi District Court
Anuradha Sinha vs Suraj Narayan And Ors on 22 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GUPTA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-06, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.233/2019 (RBT 127/22)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. Anuradha Sinha
W/o Sh. Suraj Narayan Sinha
D/o Sh. Prayag Prasad
R/o A-12, Akash Bharti Apartments,
24, I.P. Extn., Partpar Ganj.
New Delhi.
Previously at:
214/14, Section-1, Pushp Vihar,
M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi-110017
.............Appellant
Versus
1. State NCT Delhi
2. Sh. Suraj Narain Sinha
S/o Sh. Parmeshwar Singh Maurya
R/o Vill. & PO Rahul,
Distt. Nalanda-803119.
Bihar.
3. Sh. Parmeshwar Sinha (expired on 17.10.2021)
S/o Late Sh. Ram Dayal Mahato
R/o Vill. & PO Rahul,
Distt. Nalanda-803119.
Bihar.
4. Sh. Munni Devi
(absconder vide order dated 14.11.2017 of Ld. Trial Court)
W/o Sh. Parmeshwar Sinha
R/o Vill. & PO Rahul,
Distt. Nalanda-803119, Bihar.
CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 1 / 20
5. Sh. Bharat Bhushan Prasad
S/o Sh. Mahavir Mahato
R/o Jhalar Village, P.S Silao,
Distt. Nalanda, Bihar.
............Respondents
Instituted on : 06.06.2019
Reserved on : 09.02.2024
Pronounced on : 22.03.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of present Criminal Appeal U/s 372 Cr.P.C preferred by appellant Smt. Anuradha Sinha against the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2019 passed by Ld. MM-03, Mahila Court, Saket in Crl. Case No. 2031004/2016 pertaining to case FIR No. 522/2002, U/s 498A/406/494/114/109 IPC, PS Mehrauli titled as "State Vs. Suraj Narayan" whereby respondent no. 2, 3, 5 & 6 (hereinafter referred to as respondents) were acquitted.
2. Briefly stated the facts as per record are as under:-
A detailed complaint dated 20.03.2002 was made by appellant Ms. Anuradha Sinha to Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi whereupon FIR No. 522/2002 for the offences U/s 498A/406/34 IPC was lodged at PS Malviya Nagar. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet for the offences U/s 498A/406/494/34 IPC and Section 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was filed on 24.03.2003 against the respondents herein and Ms. Munni Devi before Ld. Trial Court. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 02.07.2013 directed framing of charge against respondent no. 2 U/s 498A/34 IPC as well as CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 2 / 20 494/406 IPC. Charge for the offence U/s 498A/34 IPC and Section 494/109 IPC was directed to be framed against respondent no.3. Charge for the offence U/s 498A/34 IPC and Section 494/114 IPC was directed to be framed against respondent no. 4. Similarly, charge for the offence U/s 494/114 IPC was directed to be framed against respondent no. 5 & 6. During the course of proceedings, respondent no.3 was declared absconder vide order dated 14.11.2017 of Ld. Magistrate.
3. The prosecution examined following 06 witness in support of its case:-
S. Name of Witness Documents proved Role No. Complaint given in CAW Cell as Ex.PW1/A (colly. 9 pages), Copy of medical document dated 19.05.1990 as Ex. PW1/D1 (OSR) (colly running into 5 pages), photocopy of medical documents PW-1 Smt. Anuradha
1. running into 4 pages dated Complainant Sinha 18.04.1995, 15.09.1995, 17.04.1996 and 16.09.1996 as Ex.PW1/D2 (colly) and certified copy of her statement recorded in case no. 294/05/04 dated 10.08.2008 from point A to A as Ex.PW1/D3.
2. PW-2 Sh. Saryug His letter pad containing He was a Gram Prasad things related to second Panchayat marriage of respondent Mukhiya and no.2 as Ex.PW2/A witnessed to second CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 3 / 20 marriage of respondent no.
2Father of the
3. PW-3 Prayag Prasad -
complainant Arrest memo of respondent no. 2, 3 4, 5 & 6 as Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E respectively, their personal Investigation search memos as Officer
4. PW-4 Sh. Babu Khan Ex.PW4/F, Ex.PW4/G, Ex.PW4/H, Ex.PW4/I & Ex.PW4/J respectively, photographs and marriage card of the parties as Mark X (colly. 6 photographs) and Mark Y. He was Inspector in Inquiry report on the Crime Against PW-5 Retired ACP complaint Ex.PW1/A as
5. Women Cell, Surender Kapoor Ex. PW5/A Nanakpura in the year 2002 Copy of FIR as Ex.PW6/A
6. PW- 6 SI Suresh Ekka and endorsement on rukka Duty Officer as Ex.PW6/B
4. After recording of testimonies of prosecution witnesses, statement of respondents U/s 313/281 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein they denied all the allegations. They stated that it was a false case against them. Thereafter, respondent no.2 examined himself as a witness U/s 315 Cr.P.C. He placed on record copy of divorce decree dated 12.05.2014 as Ex.DW1/A (OSR), certified copy of complaint made to CJM Bihar Sharif, Nalanda as CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 4 / 20 Ex.DW1/B (colly. running in 9 pages). He was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for State. Thereafter, DE was closed. Hence, the matter was listed for final arguments.
5. After hearing the arguments from both the sides and considering the material on record, Ld. Magistrate was of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and for that reason, respondent no. 2, 3, 5 & 6 were acquitted for all the offences vide judgment dated 25.02.2019. That judgment is being challenged by the appellant in these proceedings.
6. Arguments heard.
7. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for appellant that Ld. Trial Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment as material on record was not properly appreciated. It has been submitted that appellant was given left over food of maternal grandfather of respondent Suraj Narayan deliberately which resulted in her suffering from TB due to which her fallopian tubes were blocked and she could not conceive in natural way. It has been submitted that she was repeatedly taunted for not conceiving a child. It has been submitted that she was not even provided with basic necessities of life and that she was thrown away from the matrimonial house so that respondent no. 2 was able to marry second time. It has been submitted that stridhan articles of the appellant were not returned by the respondents. It has been submitted that the witnesses examined by prosecution have clearly deposed in support of case of prosecution and their testimonies were sufficient for conviction of respondents. Prayer has CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 5 / 20 been made for setting-aside the impugned judgment and for conviction of respondents.
8. Per contra, it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondents that there was no illegality in the impugned judgment. It has been submitted that the appellant was suffering from TB before her gauna and that she was provided proper medical treatment by her husband. It has been submitted that appellant herself left the company of respondents as she was not happy while residing in a village in Bihar because she was from Delhi. It has been submitted that the allegations regarding second marriage of respondent no.2 in the year 2001 were not correct and that he has married second time after obtaining divorce from the appellant vide decree of the Court dated 12.05.2014. It has been submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and for that reason, they were rightly acquitted by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment. He has prayed for dismissal of appeal.
9. I have considered the submissions from both the sides alongwith record.
10. Record shows that prosecution was required to prove the ingredients of offences U/s 498A/406/494/114/109 IPC. Section 498A IPC provides as under:-
"498A Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 6 / 20 may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
11. As per Explanation(b) quoted above, only the harassment done to a woman with an object to coerce her or her relative to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security can be termed as cruelty. Mere harassment in itself will not amount to cruelty. Similarly, mere demand of property etc. in itself will not amount to cruelty.
12. This Court is guided on this aspect by the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,1990 CriLJ 407 in which it was observed that beating and harassment of a woman with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands was esential to prove offence u/s 498A IPC. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Richhpal Kaur Vs. State of Haryana, Crl. Misc. No.1776-M/1990. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of H.P. Vs. Nikku Ram And Ors. AIR 1996 SC 67 also made similar observation in context of Section 498A IPC.
CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 7 / 2013. Section 406 IPC contains punishment for the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust defined U/s 405 IPC as under:-
"405. Criminal breach of trust.- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any domination over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharges, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits, "criminal breach of trust"......................"
14. Following are its ingredients:-
(i) entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property;
(ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person so to do so in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.
15. In Rashmi Kumar Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) 2 SCC 397, Hon'ble Apex Court on this aspect held as under:-
"......It is always a question of fact in each case as to how property came to be entrusted to the husband or any other member of the family by the wife when she left the matrimonial home or was driven out therefrom. No absolute or fixed rule of universal application can be laid down in that behalf. It requires to be established by the CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 8 / 20 complainant or the prosecution, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, as to how and in what manner the entrustment of the stridhana property of dominion over her stridhana came to be made to the husband or any other member of the family or the accused person, as the case may be......."
16. Section 494 IPC provides as under:-
"494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.- 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."
17. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gopal Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1979 SC 713, following are its ingredients:-
(a) that the accused spouse must have contracted the first marriage;
(b) that while the first marriage was subsisting the spouse concerned must have contracted a second marriage and;
(c) 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.
18. Prosecution has examined PW-1/complainant Smt. Anuradha Sinha and her father PW-3 Sh. Prayag Prasad to prove the allegations for the commission of offences U/s 498A/494/406 IPC whereas PW-2 Sh. Saryug CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 9 / 20 Prasad was examined to prove the allegations for the commission of offence U/s 494 IPC. In the testimony of PW-1 Smt. Anuradha Sinha, she stated that after her marriage when she reached her matrimonial home, her mother-in-law taunted her that "mujhe bahut saste me phansa liya". She also stated that her maternal grandfather was also residing with them at matrimonial home who used to remain sick and suffering from cough problem. She stated that her mother-in-law used to give her to eat leftover food of said maternal grand father in the utensils used by him and due to that she also got sick and started suffering from cough problem. She stated that her husband used to give her medicines from the chemist shop and after her repeated requests, he took her to doctor whereupon she was advised to take medicine for one month but she was provided the medicine for 8-10 days only. She also stated that her mother-in-law used to provide her only one soap which she had to use for a period of one month or two months. She stated that her mother-in-law used to taunt her that "tumhare mayke se money-order nahi aata". Her husband, father-in-law and mother- in-law use to taunt her that "badi sakt jaan hai, marti bhi nahi hai". She also leveled allegations against her nanad and nandoi as they also used to taunt her with regard to jeweleries and banarasi Sari. Her mother-in-law used to say that had she brought enough money in her marriage, then from that money all the wishes of her son-in-law and her daughter would have been fulfilled. She also stated that in May 1990, she went to her parental house for treatment of tuberculosis and all the expenses were borne by her father. On her recovery, her husband took her back to her matrimonial house. She alleged that her in-laws did not take proper care of her. She also stated that her fallopian tubes got blocked due to TB which was revealed on her medical examination in Patna. She stated that the concerned doctor told CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 10 / 20 her that she can give birth to a child by IVF and for that her in-laws asked Rs. 50,000/- from her parents for IVF treatment. She stated that on being asked by her, her parents gave Rs. 50,000/- to her husband for the said treatment in May 1996 but no such treatment was provided to her. She stated that her husband told her that if she wanted to be treated then she should go to her parents house and get herself treated there. She also stated that in June, 2000, she got treated in Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi where she got IVF treatment twice but same were not successful and the expenses incurred were Rs. 1.75 lacs and said expenses were borne by her father and brother. Her husband and in-laws did not spend a single penny on her said treatment. She again asked her husband for IVF treatment but he replied that "itna kharcha karne ki kya jaroorat hai, hum kisi anath bache ko god le lete hain". She stated that whenever she used to ask her husband to adopt a child from orphanage, he used to threaten her and throw her out of their room. She also stated that when she got IVF treatment, she got to know about the talks of second marriage with a woman of village Navi Nagar, PS Deep Nagar. When she came to know this fact, she went to her matrimonial home in March 2001 however, when she reached there, her in-laws got shocked. In March 2001, her father went to her matrimonial home with some members where Panchayat was held in this regard and she was assured by her husband/in-laws that they will not solemnize the second marriage. She also stated that her husband and in-laws used to demand motorcycle from her as her husband used to face problem in traveling. Whenever she used to oppose said demand, her husband used to slap her. In the year 2001, her husband used to visit outside in the morning and come back in late hours without informing her on regular basis. He also tried to convince her for his second marriage by saying that if a child will born CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 11 / 20 from second marriage, he or she will call her "badi maa". Her in-laws also used to instigate her husband to solemnize second marriage and they used to lock her inside the room without giving her meals. She stated that one day, her father-in-law came from outside and asked her to give food. When she gave him food, he kicked the plate of food and said "haramkhor rotiyan jali hui hain, kaam na kaaj ki saara din bas padi rehti hai". In the meanwhile, her husband came and gave beatings to her. In the year 2001, her husband, nanad/nandoi and her mother-in-law went outside leaving her alone with her father-in-law to keep watch on her to perform second marriage. She came to know from some known person that her husband had solemnized second marriage with a girl namely Sabo Kumari D/o Late Lakhpati, Mata of Village Pul, District Nalanda. This fact was told by Sh. Sarju Prashad to her who was Mukhia of her parental village. When she asked her husband regarding the same, he replied that they had gone for medical treatment of his mother. When she told this fact to her father and brother, they came to her matrimonial home with other relatives and tried to talk to her in-laws but they misbehaved with them and threw them outside the house. This incident happened on 11.01.2002. Due to mental and physical cruelty, she came back to her parental house with her father and brother. She also stated that her stridhan articles including gold Maang tika, 3 tola gold chain, gold bangles, Mangal sutra, two chains, two earrings, two jhumka, one ring and some silver jewelery were still in possession of her mother-in-law. Her other stridhan articles were also not given back to her.
19. In her cross-examination, she stated that after her marriage on 08.05.1987, she had remained at her matrimonial home at Rahui for 5-6 days and thereafter had gone to her parents village at Niyamat Nagar. From CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 12 / 20 there, she returned to her matrimonial home in November 1989 after gauna. She admitted that she had stayed at her matrimonial home after gauna for around 5-6 days and then she returned to her parents Village at Niyamat Nagar. From there, she came back to her matrimonial house in the month of March or April 1990. She stated that she came back to Delhi in the month of May 1990 and she returned to her matrimonial house after the treatment of Tuberculosis at Delhi. She denied the suggestion that she was being treated for tuberculosis even before her gauna. She also denied the suggestion that she was being treated for tuberculosis by Dr. Avdhesh Prashad before gauna. She admitted the fact that she had never complained about getting infected from TB from her Nana Sasur before 11.01.2002. She admitted the fact that during IVF treatment, her husband was with her however, she denied the suggestion that he had spent Rs. 40,000/- for her treatment. She also denied the suggestion that her allegations regarding her husband having got married with one lady namely Sabo in the year 2001 was wrong. She admitted the suggestion that she was not having any proof regarding her husband having solemnized second marriage with Ms. Sabo in year 2001. She stated that she did not know that after obtaining divorce from her in the year 2014, whether he got married on 28.11.2015 with lady namely Priya or not. She denied the suggestion that while leaving her matrimonial home, she took her all jewelery articles and other belonging with her. She admitted the suggestion that the allegations by her in her complaint Ex.PW1/A before CAW Cell were not mentioned previously anywhere. She also admitted that she had not lodged any other complaint prior to filing of the said complaint.
CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 13 / 2020. Testimony of PW-3 Mr. Prayag Prashad was also to the same effect. Regarding second marriage of accused, he stated that he received information from his village that his son-in-law had performed second marriage with Shabo D/o Lakhpati Mehto R/o Village Khul, PO & District Nalanda, Bihar and that second marriage was performed at Mangla Sthan, Bihar Sharif. He stated that on coming to know this fact, he alongwith his son went to the house of his son-in-law and when they reached there, he came to know from the local persons that he had performed second marriage and this was also confirmed by Mukhiya Saryug Prasad who had witnessed the said ceremony of second marriage.
21. PW-2 Mr. Saryug Prasad was allegedly a witness to the second marriage performed by Suraj Narayan. In his testimony, he stated that he was Gram Panchayat Mukhiya, PS Silao, Nalanda from the year 2001 to 2006. He stated that in the year 2002, accused Suraj Narayan performed second marriage with Saabo Kumari at Mangal Sthan, Bihar Sarif. He stated that he knew accused Suraj Narayan as his first marriage was solemnized with Anuradha. Regarding second marriage of Suraj Narayan, he had written all the things on his letter pad (Ex.PW-2/A) and gave the same to the father of Ms. Anuradha on being asked to do that. He was put a leading question by Ld. Addl. PP for State after permission from Court regarding recording of his statement by police and handing over the document Ex.PW-2/A whereupon he denied that his statement was recorded by police. Thereafter, he was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State wherein he stated that he was unable to recall whether he had given his statement to the police on 29.01.2003 or not. Thereafter contents of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by police weres shown to him CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 14 / 20 whereupon he stated that he was unable to say as to whether he had given any such statement to police or not. He admitted the suggestion that due to passage of time, he forgot that his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by police. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that he and father of Ms. Anuradha belong to the same village. He also stated that they both were of same Kushwaha caste. He stated that in the year 2001 at about 04:00 PM (he did not remember the date and month), while going through auto rickshaw, he saw that accused was solemnizing his second marriage. He was given a suggestion that no such marriage was solemnized by the accused and that he did not have any personal knowledge about the same. Said suggestion was denied by him. He was also given a suggestion to the effect that document Ex.PW-2/A was false and fabricated which was also denied by him. He stated that he cannot say as to whether Sabo got married with one Mr. Arvind of Village, Post and Block Pandara was presently residing at Delhi or not.
22. Perusal of aforementioned testimonies of witnesses shows that allegations leveled by them against the respondents were lacking in material particulars. One of the allegations leveled by the complainant and supported by PW-3 Mr. Prayag Prasad is to the effect that she was deliberately given leftover food in the utensils used by maternal grandfather of respondent no. 2 who was suffering from TB and due to which she also got infected with TB. It is common knowledge that tuberculosis is a contagious decease meaning thereby same can be communicated from a person already suffering therefrom to another. Having said so, there is nothing on record to suggest that maternal grandfather of respondent no. 2 was in fact suffering from TB. In the CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 15 / 20 absence of this vital piece of evidence, it will be difficult to hold that the complainant got infected with TB due to his leftover food having been given to her in the utensils used by him. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the complainant that she was given such leftover food of maternal grandfather of respondent no.2 so as to pressurize her in any way to meet any unlawful demand of dowry of respondents. She has not stated anything to that effect in her entire testimony including in her cross-examination so even if it is presumed that she was in fact given leftover food of maternal grandfather of respondent no. 2 due to which she got infected with TB, then also, same was not sufficient to fulfill the ingredients of Section 498A IPC. Only allegation regarding demand of dowry on the part of respondents has come in her examination-in-chief in two lines wherein she stated that respondent no. 2 and her in-laws used to demand a motorcycle from her because respondent no. 2 used to face problem in traveling and that whenever she used to oppose the said demand, he used to slap her. She has not mentioned as to when this demand of motorcycle was made from her for the first time. There is no date, month or year thereof in her entire testimony. It is to be noted here that her father/PW-3 Mr. Prayag Prasad did not state anything to the effect that there was any such demand of motorcycle from her daughter or from him. In these circumstances, it can be safely said that the testimonies of complainant as well as her father were not sufficient to fulfill the ingredients of Section 498A IPC.
23. As far as offence U/s 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be seen that for proving the ingredients of that offence, prosecution was first required to prove that specific articles were handed over to the respondents which were not returned even after demand. Complainant has stated before Ld. Trial CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 16 / 20 Court that her stridhan articles including gold Maang tika, three tola gold chain, gold bangles, Mangal sutra, two chains, two earrings, two jhumkas, one ring and some silver jewelery were still in possession of her mother-in- law. She also stated that her other stridhan articles were also not returned to her. Admittedly, she did not mention any date, time or year on which those articles came in possession of her mother-in-law. It is also not clear as to whether same were handed over by her to her mother-in-law on her own or whether same were demanded by her on some pretext. It is also not clear as to whether she had ever demanded the stridhan articles back from her mother-in-law and if yes, when such a demand was raised. It is to be noted that charge for the offence U/s 406 IPC was framed against respondent no.2 however in her testimony the complainant has apparently not leveled any allegation qua that offence against him.
24. Coming to the offence U/s 494 IPC, as per the complainant, respondent no.2 got married second time in the year 2001 with another girl namely Ms. Sabo Kumari D/o Late Lakhpati Mata of Village Kul, District Nalanda. Her father PW-3 Mr. Prayag Prasad also deposed to the same effect and as per him, the second marriage was solemnized in November 2001 at Mangla Sthan, Bihar Sharif. Admittedly, neither the complainant nor her father had seen the ceremonies pertaining to second marriage of respondent no.2. PW-2 Mr. Saryug Prasad had allegedly witnessed said marriage ceremony. He had given in writing the information in this regard on his letter pad (Ex.PW-2/A). As per the same, respondent no. 2 got married with Ms. Sabo Kumari D/o Late Lakhpati Mahato of Village Kul, Post & District Nalanda in Mangla Sthan, Bihar Sharif on 26.11.2001. It has also been mentioned therein that said marriage was solemnized with all CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 17 / 20 customary rituals and that it was second marriage of respondent no.2 while his first wife Ms. Anuradha Sinha was still alive. It has also been mentioned that Ms. Anuradha Sinha was residing at her matrimonial home at that time and that second marriage of respondent no. 2 was solemnized by concealing this fact from his first wife and her family members. PW-2 state that he had given this information in writing on being asked to do so by father of complainant Mr. Prayag Prasad who was from his native village and they both were of same caste. Regarding the manner in which this information came to his knowledge, he stated that it was in the year 2001 at about 04:00 PM when he was going to auto rickshaw that he saw solemnization of second marriage of respondent no.2. It has not come on record as to when this fact was communicated by him to PW-3 Mr. Prayag Prasad. PW-3 Mr. Prayag Prasad has also not deposed anything on this particular aspect. Testimony of PW-2 on the aspect that he had seen second marriage of respondent no. 2 being solemnized is doubtful for several reasons. It has not come on record as to whether the venue of said marriage was within the Village Niyamat Nagar of which he was Mukhiya at the relevant time. Apparently, venue was in Bihar Sharif not situated within the limits of Village Niyamat Nagar. In these circumstances, PW-2 should have explained his presence at the spot at the time when alleged second marriage of respondent no.2 was taking place which he has failed to do. It is also not clear as to how a person who was traveling by autorickshaw was able to register the fact that a marriage being solemnized in a temple on the way was between respondent no. 2 and another girl namely Ms. Sabo Kumari. At the most, a person so travelling can come to know the names of bride and bride-groom from the decoration done generally outside the venue however there can be many persons having the name Suraj Narayan. In CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 18 / 20 case, PW-2 was able to identify respondent no. 2 in the venue, he could have mentioned about other people similarly identified by him. It is also not clear as to whether respondent no. 2 was seen by him taking seven rounds around the holy fire (Saptpadi). In any case, even if PW-2 is believed to have observed the fact that marriage of respondent no.2 was being solemnized with a girl in Bihar Sharif then also it remains unproved as to whether second marriage was solemnized after observing all the customary rituals. In the absence of proof of solemnization of second marriage as per personal laws of the parties, it can be safely said that prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of offence U/s 494 IPC.
25. On the aspect of duty of appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, this Court is guided by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in H.D Sundara & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Crl. Appeal No. 247/2011 wherein it was held as under:-
"8. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercise appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal.
But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re- appreciating the oral and documentary evidence,the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 19 / 20
appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established.
Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken."
26. Considering the above discussion, this Court is of the view that Ld. Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents by way of impugned judgment and that no interference therewith is called for in present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Announced in the open (Sunil Gupta)
Court on 22nd March, 2024 Additional Sessions Judge-06,
South, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CA 233/2019 Anuradha Sinha Vs. Suraj Narayan And Ors.. Page 20 / 20