IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1167 of 2008() ------------------------------ C.C.NO.1/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M-III, THRISSUR REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------------------- 1. SOBANA, W/O.MOHANAN PUTHENPURAKAL HOUSE, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE VELUPPADAM DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MOHANAN, PUTHENPURAKAL HOUSE VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE VELUPPADAM DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENTS: 1. SHALLY, W/O.NANDANAN & D/O.VASUDEVAN CHITTIYATH HOUSE, PUTHUR VILLAGE & DESOM THRISSUR TALUK. 2. NANDANAN, S/O.BALAN, AGED 39 YEARS PANDATH HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKODE DESOM MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. AMMINI, W/O.BALAN, PANDATH HOUSE CHIRAKKAKODE DESOM, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK. 4. SIVADAS, S/O.BALAN, AGED 37 YEARS PANDATH HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKODE DESOM MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1167 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10 th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M-III, Thrissur, which was a prosecution on the basis of a private complaint instituted by the 1st respondent herein, alleging the offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494, 109 and 114 read with 149 IPC and also sections 4 and 6 of Child Marriage Restraint Act. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant was married by the 1st accused Nandanan on 1.05.1996 as per the customery rites of Hindu-Ezhava community. Two children were born in that wed-lock. After a short span of time their relationship became strained. The first accused deserted her. But the marriage between the 1st accused and the complainant is still subsisting. While so on 7.6.01, the 1st accused married a minor girl namely Dhanya as per the customery rites of Hindu-Ezhava community. A2 is the mother of A1 and A5 and A6 are the brothers of A1. A3 and A4 are the Crl.R.P.No. 1167 of 2008 2 parents of the said minor girl Dhanya. A2 and A6 abetted the second marriage knowing the existence of first marriage. Hence the complaint. 3. The 5th accused died pending trial. Those who are facing trial are A1 to A4 and A6. The learned Magistrate framed charge under Sections 494,109 read with 114 IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. On the side of the complainant PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. Thereafter, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. The case was then posted for defence evidence. A1, A2 and A6 filed Annexure B witness schedule containing 5 witnesses. A3 and A4 had filed another witness schedule which is Annexure A. A3 and A4 were represented by another counsel. The contention of all the accused was one of total denial. According to A6 he is an employee of the Agricultural University, Vellanikkara and on 7.6.01, he was on official duty. According to A1 he was in Gulf on 7.6.01 and therefore he could not have committed the offence as alleged. Out of the 5 Crl.R.P.No. 1167 of 2008 3 witnesses cited by accused Nos.1,2 and 6 the Dean of the Agricultural University was one among them. He was examined as DW1. The learned Magistrate thereafter did not allow the examination of any of the witnesses in the Annexure A witness list filed by the revision petitioners who were accused Nos.3 and 4. Since the petitioners are facing trial not only for the offence of abatement of bigamy but also for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, the learned Magistrate ought to have permitted the petitioners to examine their witnesses to substantiate their evidence. The petitioners had cited only two witnesses. The order passed by the learned Magistrate closing the defence evidence suo motu is accordingly set aside and the court below shall allow the two witnesses cited by the petitioners to be examined as witnesses on their side and thereafter proceed to dispose of the case, in accordance with law. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj