1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.176 OF 2007. IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.30/2007. Sow.Shalan W/o Bassppa Satale ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, advocate for the applicant. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2. Ms.V.H.Sangale, advocate holding for Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 7. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 26.08.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The applicant is original complainant and seeks leave to appeal. The complaint of the 2 applicant was to the effect that the Respondent No.1 performed second marriage with the Respondent No.2 on 12.5.2003 at about 11-30 a.m. at village Hokarna (Dist. Latur). It was alleged that the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 intentionally aided the performance of the second marriage. The applicant is wife of the Respondent No.1 and their marriage is subsisting. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the applicant and the Respondent No.1 are the wife and husband interse. The Respondent NO. 1 had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights. The applicant is a School Teacher and resides at village Jamb (Bk.), Tq. Mukhed, to attend her duty. She is not the eye witness of the alleged second marriage. She examined P.W. Shivshankar and P.W. Shivhari in support of her case. Out of them P.W. Shivshankar is her brother and P. W. Shivhari is his friend. They narrated that they had gone to village Wanjarwada for Darshan on account of Ekadashi. They noticed that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were performing the 3 second marriage at village Hokarna. Needless to say, they claimed to be chance witnesses. The learned Magistrate held that both of them were the interested witnesses. Though the alleged second marriage was performed on 12.5.2003, yet, the complaint was filed on 25.7.2003, after a considerable delay. The delay is inexplicable. If the brother of the applicant/complainant gave information to her then ordinarily such excessive delay would not have been committed in filing of the complaint. Secondly, the witnesses did not depose about details of the second marriage regarding performance of Homa and taking seven (7) rounds around Holy fire by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. They vaguely stated that they saw the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 while putting on "Mundawalya" on the forehead. The learned Magistrate held that such kind of evidence was insufficient to establish the charge of bigamy. The reasons recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate are based on material placed on record and there appears no perversity or illegality committed while appreciating the evidence. Hence, 4 the leave is refused. The appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp176007