( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2271 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2272 OF 2008 Nilabai w/o Ginyandeo Jadhav APPLICANT VERSUS Ginyandeo s/o Limbaji Jadhav and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.K. Adkine, advocate for the applicant. None for the respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 30th September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. The applicant – Nilabai – is original complainant. She has filed application for condonation of delay of 407 days in filing of the present application and the appeal. She also has filed application seeking leave to appeal. Both the applications are being considered together. ( 2 ) 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 3. Mr. Adkine would submit that the delay is caused due to the fact that the complainant – Nilabai was unable to collect the relevant documents within short period. The application for condonation of delay shows that the revenue officials did not issue the copies and hesitated to do so. The application does not show as to when the copies were applied for, when the copies were prepared and when those were were supplied. There is vague statement in the application that the revenue official hesitated for issuing the documents. 4. Mr. Adkine would submit that the documents comprise of copy of voters’ list which may indicate that original accused Nos. 1 and 2 entered the wedlock and are living together. 5. The applicant – Nilabai asserted that the accused No.1, who happens to be her husband, performed second marriage with the accused No. 2 with the aid of the other accused persons. It was alleged that the ( 3 ) offence of bigamy was committed on 20-09-1999. The trial Court found that there was absolutely no tangible evidence to infer that the second marriage was performed as alleged. For, the applicant – Nilabai stated that she learnt about second marriage from one Bhagwan Deore and Baban Deore. She was unable to locate the month, year or day of the alleged second marriage. She was unable to give details about the second marriage. She did not examine any witness in support of her testimony. The complainant revealed that her allegations were based on information received from Bhagwan Deore and Baban Deore. However, she tried to depose as if she was present in the so called second marriage and did not examine either of the witnesses. Her version did not show as to what were the rites observed during the said marriage. Obviously, her hearsay version was found to be totally inadequate. Not only that the acquittal order is well justified but that the explanation given in support of the delay condonation application is quite unfounded and lame. 6. In the result, both the applications are ( 4 ) dismissed. Consequently, the criminal appeal stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln2271-08