IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRL.A.No. 90 of 2001(A) ----------------------- CC.847/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT: ----------- M.U.SOBHANA, D/0.M.V.UNNIRI, MULLANGALATH HOUSE, PANANGAD. BY ADV. SMT.VANAJA MADHAVAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. K.K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUMARAN, KALTHILPARAMBIL, CHENGAMANAD, ALUVA. 2. SHEELA, D/O.MAMANVALATHARA, VALATHARA HOUSE, ERIYAD, P.O., KODUNGALLOOR. 3. PRAKASHAN, S/O.MAMANVALATHARA, VALATHARA HOUSE, ERIYAD, P.O., KODUNGALLOOR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.JAI GEORGE. SRI.P.L.DEVADAS FOR R2 & 3 SRI.RAPHAEL ANTONY THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE S AME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal. No.90 OF 2001 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~ Appellant is the complainant in a prosecution initiated against the respondents herein alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 494, 120(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the appellant/complainant that respondent No.1, her husband, had married respondent No.2 while his first marriage subsisted attracting the offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. Respondent No.3, who was the brother of respondent No.2 was implicated in the case alleging that he had destroyed evidence regarding the above marriage by carrying out certain corrections in the marriage register maintained at the temple, where the second marriage was allegedly conducted. The trial court found that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving the charge against the accused. Accordingly, they were acquitted. The above order of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal. Crl.Appeal.No.90/2001 2 2. The case of the appellant/complainant was that respondent No.1 had married her in the year 1975 and they had been living together in the matrimonial home. Two children were born in the said wedlock. However, the complainant alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home by her husband. Thereafter, she had been living in her parental home. She admitted that her daughter was residing with her husband, and her son was living with her. According to the complainant, her husband (accused No.1) married accused No.2, at Peruvaram Sree Mahadeva temple at Paravur on 15.4.1995 as per the customary rites prevalent in the community. The marriage was entered in the register maintained at the temple. Accused No.3, the brother of the accused No.2, was a signatory to the marriage register. 3. The complainant was examined as PW1 in the case. She deposed before the Court that she had not seen the marriage ceremony. She had only hearsay information about the marriage. But she stated that the name of her husband (Balakrishnan) was corrected as Gopalakrishnan in the marriage Crl.Appeal.No.90/2001 3 register maintained at the temple at the instance of accused No.3. Ext.P1 is stated to be the application submitted by accused No.3 for correction of the name, Ext.P2 is the marriage register and Ext.P3 is the relevant page where the entry regarding the marriage was made. 4. It is true that Ext.P1 will show that accused No.3 had submitted an application to correct the name of the person who had got married at the temple on 15.4.1995. The name Balakrishnan was corrected as Gopala Krishnan. But, no evidence was adduced to show that it was accused No.1, who had got married on the day in question. To put it differently, it was not proved by the prosecution that no real person by name Gopala Krishnan had got married at the temple on the alleged day. 5. More importantly, PW2 the Administrative Officer of the temple who was purportedly examined to speak about the marriage, deposed before the Court that he did not know the accused. He further stated that several marriages used to be Crl.Appeal.No.90/2001 4 conducted at the temple. He used to sit in the office. He never bothered to verify who were all getting married and what ceremonies were being followed by them. PW3, the Secretary of the Advisory Committee of the temple, deposed that he had seen the accused signing the register at the temple. He categorically stated that he had not seen the marriage ceremony between accused No.1 and accused No.2. In short, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was totally insufficient to prove the charge against the accused. In other words, the learned Magistrate was justified in taking the view that the prosecution had failed in proving that accused No.1 had married accused No.2. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, in my view, was justified in holding the accused not guilty. I do not find any justifiable reason to take a different view. There is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) ps Crl.Appeal.No.90/2001 5 A.K.BASHEER, J. =========================== CRL. APPEAL NO.90 OF 2001-A =========================== JUDGMENT DATED 4TH JUNE 2008 =============