( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1533 OF 2009 Shanta Arun Vhatkar APPLICANT VERSUS Arun Yedba Vhatkar & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. Bharti B. Gunjal, advocate for the applicant. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. S.I. Namdole, advocate for respondent No.2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Seeking leave to appeal, the original complainant has challenged judgement rendered in criminal case bearing R.T.C. No. 162/1993 by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmednagar. By the impugned judgement, the respondents were acquitted for the offences punishable under section 494 and 494 read with section 109 of the I.P. Code. ( 2 ) 2. The applicant (complainant) is wife of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 is said to be second wife of the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 3 (since deceased) and No. 4 are the parents of the respondent No.1. The marriage between the applicant and the respondent No. 1 was performed before about nine (9) years of the complaint i.e. somewhere in 1984. The applicant alleged that on 25th August, 1991, the respondent No. 1 performed second marriage with the respondent No. 2 and the other respondents aided them in performance of such act of bigamy. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after a full-dressed trial, acquitted the respondents for the reason that no reliable and adequate evidence was adduced to prove the accusation regarding the offence of bigamy. 3. It emerges from the record that the applicant lodged the complaint on 19th April, 1994 regarding the alleged marriage dated 25th August, 1991. Obviously, the complaint was filed after a couple of years after the second marriage. The delay in filing of the private ( 3 ) complaint by itself is one of the reasons which weakens the case of the complainant. On her behalf, besides her version, the testimonies of CW2 Appasaheb and CW3 Kanuji were recorded. Admittedly, she has no personal knowledge regarding the second marriage. She was informed about the incident of second marriage by CW Appasaheb and CW Kanuji. The learned Judicial Magistrate noticed that CW2 Appasaheb claimed to be a chance witness. He stated that by chance, he was proceeding to village Dongargaon in that morning for darshan of “Mahadeo” and then, he came across the incident of marriage which was being solemnized. He deposed that he noticed that the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 garlanded each other. He thereafter left the place and proceeded to MIDC Area. He telephonically informed brother of the applicant, namely, Ashok that the marriage was being solemnized. Her father i.e. CW3 Kanuji gave details of the rites which were performed during the course of the second marriage. It is rather difficult to believe that after receiving telephonic information by Ashok, he passed on the information to CW Kanuji who proceeded to village Dondargaon from Ahmednagar or village Kharda ( 4 ) wherever he might have been residing at that time, and in his presence, the further ceremonies like applying turmeric on the person of the bride and the bridegroom and `home-havan’ and `saptapadi’ had been performed. This is as if the respondents were waiting for CW Kanuji to reach the place of marriage and to allow him to witness the rites followed by them during the second marriage. The learned Judicial Magistrate has properly analyzed the oral evidence of the above two (2) witnesses. 4. Having regard to the inexplicable delay and the shaky evidence tendered by the complainant/applicant, leave to appeal is rejected. The application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln1533-09