Appeal by the complainant against the acquittal of three accused persons charged with bigamy, cheating, and destroying evidence. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding the prosecution evidence regarding the marriage and evidence destruction insufficient.
None; the appeal against acquittal was dismissed, and the lower court judgment stands.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930
CRL.A.No. 90 of 2001(A)
----------------------CC.847/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVUR
APPELLANT:
-----------
M.U.SOBHANA, D/0.M.V.UNNIRI, MULLANGALATH HOUSE, PANANGAD.
BY ADV. SMT.VANAJA MADHAVAN
RESPONDENTS:
-------------
1. K.K.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUMARAN, KALTHILPARAMBIL, CHENGAMANAD, ALUVA.
2. SHEELA, D/O.MAMANVALATHARA, VALATHARA HOUSE, ERIYAD, P.O., KODUNGALLOOR.
3. PRAKASHAN, S/O.MAMANVALATHARA, VALATHARA HOUSE, ERIYAD, P.O., KODUNGALLOOR.
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.JAI GEORGE. SRI.P.L.DEVADAS FOR R2 & 3 SRI.RAPHAEL ANTONY
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE S AME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.K.BASHEER, J. -----------------------------------Crl. Appeal. No.90 OF 2001
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~
Appellant is the complainant in a prosecution initiated against the respondents herein alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 494, 120(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the appellant/complainant that respondent No.1, her husband, had married respondent No.2 while his first marriage subsisted attracting the offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. Respondent No.3, who was the brother of respondent No.2 was implicated in the case alleging that he had destroyed evidence regarding the above marriage by carrying out certain corrections in the marriage register maintained at the temple, where the second marriage was allegedly conducted. The trial court found that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving the charge against the accused. Accordingly, they were acquitted. The above order of acquittal is under challenge in this appeal.
Crl.Appeal.No.90/2001
2
Crl.Appeal.No.90/2001
3
register maintained at the temple at the instance of accused No.3. Ext.P1 is stated to be the application submitted by accused No.3 for correction of the name, Ext.P2 is the marriage register and Ext.P3 is the relevant page where the entry regarding the marriage was made.
Crl.Appeal.No.90/2001
4
conducted at the temple. He used to sit in the office. He never bothered to verify who were all getting married and what ceremonies were being followed by them. PW3, the Secretary of the Advisory Committee of the temple, deposed that he had seen the accused signing the register at the temple. He categorically stated that he had not seen the marriage ceremony between accused No.1 and accused No.2. In short, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was totally insufficient to prove the charge against the accused. In other words, the learned Magistrate was justified in taking the view that the prosecution had failed in proving that accused No.1 had married accused No.2. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, in my view, was justified in holding the accused not guilty. I do not find any justifiable reason to take a different view. There is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
( A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)
ps
Crl.Appeal.No.90/2001
5
A.K.BASHEER, J.
===========================
CRL. APPEAL NO.90 OF 2001-A
===========================
JUDGMENT
DATED 4TH JUNE 2008 =============
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution successfully proved that the respondent had married a second wife while a first marriage subsisted.
Whether the brother of the second wife was involved in destroying evidence by correcting the temple marriage register.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M.U.Sobhana
K.K.Balakrishnan
Sheela
Prakashan
State of Kerala
A.K.Basheer
Appellant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
