( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4242 OF 2009 Sou. Mosambi @ Sunita Dadasaheb Gaikwad APPLICANT VERSUS Dadasaheb Namdeo Gaikwad and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, advocate for the respondents No. 1, 4 to 10. Mr. Y.B. Pathan, advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 3. Mr. V.G. Shelke, APP for the respondent No. 11. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 1st September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against judgement of acquittal of the respondents No. 1 to 10, for offences punishable under section 494 read with section 109 of the I.P. Code. 2. The applicant's case before the trial Court was that she married the respondent No.1 - Dadasaheb on 29th May, 1998 at village Sakuri. She was ill-treated by the husband and his relatives. They were demanding money. It was further alleged that the applicant was beaten up and was driven out of the house on account of her failure to fetch Rs. 25,000/- from her ( 2 ) parents. The respondent No. 1 married the respondent No. 2 at village Puntamba on 31st December, 2000 and the other respondents intentionally aided them in the performance of said second marriage and thereby all of them have committed offence punishable under section 494 read with section 109 of the I.P. Code. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the record and proceedings. 4. It appears that the applicant - PW Mosambi deposed on oath before the trial Court that she and her brother, etc. attended the alleged second marriage at Puntamba on 31st December, 2000. She stated that the second marriage between the respondents No. 1 and 2 was performed in accordance with the customs and rites followed by Buddhism. It is pertinent to note that the applicant issued a notice dated 8th January, 2001 (Exh-89) to the respondent No. 1. The notice wrongly showed his name as `Babasaheb'. So far as the second marriage is concerned, what is alleged in the notice is that he and his relatives conspired to perform illegal marriage with a girl of Puntamba. In the said notice, the applicant did not allege that she personally attended the said so called second ( 3 ) marriage, nor she gave the name of the bride. It is vaguely referred in the notice that he married a girl from village Puntamba. The notice also does not show that PW4 and PW5 were the eye witnesses to the second marriage. It is vaguely stated in the notice that the applicant recently learnt that the respondent No. 1 had married with a girl of Puntamba. The trial Court noticed that though the applicant deposed that on same day, she approached P.S.O. at outpost of Puntamba and reported the incident, yet, there is no corroborative evidence in this behalf. The complaint was filed after lapse of about 38 days from the date of alleged incident. The delay was not explained by the applicant. The trial Court further noticed that the testimonies of the witnesses were inconsistent, un- creditworthy and insufficient to prove the second marriage. Considering the reasons ascribed by the learned Magistrate, I find no much substance in the application. Consequently, the leave is to appeal is refused and the application is dismissed. The appeal be deemed as dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4242-09 ( 4 )