THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.813 of 2006 16-12-2014 BETWEEN:
Smt Vadithya Chandi …..Appellant/ complainant AND Vadithya Venkatia And others.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.813 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the complainant/appellant Ms.Sharada Ruth argued in length for half- an-hour. When this Court informed the counsel that it is a fit case for dismissal in the facts and circumstances of the case. Then, she submitted that her senior would come and argue and as such, sought for pass over. When the case was again called, none appears and there was no representation on their behalf. Again the matter was passed over. Again the case was called at 1.15 p.m., neither the counsel, who sought pass over, nor her senior counsel Sri G.Narender Raj was present and hence, this Court perused the records and proceeded with the case.
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the complainant challenging the Judgment dated 18.12.2003 passed in C.C.No.27 of 2003 by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahaboobnagar, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 494 IPC read with Section 109 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
The complainant Vadithya Chandi is the legally wedded wife of A.1. Their marriage took place about four years prior to the occurrence as per the custom. Out of the married wed lock, a female child was born. A.1 is the son of A.2 and A.3 and they constitute joint family. A.1 and A.3 colluded together with an intention to perform the marriage of A.1 with A.4 beat her driven out from the house. On 02.12.2001, the marriage of A.1 with A.4 was performed at Deepla Naik Thanda and this marriage was performed by Bheemachary.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P.1 was marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court having found the accused not guilty, acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 494 IPC read with 109 IPC. Aggrieved over the same, the complainant filed the present appeal.
The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused on the ground that even though the appellant/complainant ventured to prove the second marriage of the first respondent with fourth respondent, she failed to prove the very fact that the first respondent is her husband and she is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent, and that the said marriage is in existence. Further, the learned trial Judge observed that the stand of the first respondent was that he never married the appellant/complainant herein and that the contra was not proved by the appellant/complainant herein. In such a situation, the burden lies on the complainant to establish her marriage with the first respondent and that the said marriage was in existence during the second marriage of the first respondent with the fourth respondent. But, the complainant has not proved her marriage with the first respondent and also has not proved that the first respondent has married fourth respondent, and as such, in the absence of any evidence to prove the case of the complainant, the accused/respondents cannot be found guilty for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 IPC. Hence, the accused are acquitted of the offence alleged against them.
On perusing the evidence available on record and the Judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given while acquitting the accused is in accordance with law. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 16.12.2014 pln