IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL A No. 24 of 2002()
1. P.PRIYA D/O.M.K.CHANDRAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNICHIRA W/O. CHANDUKUTTY POONATH HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. PUSHPA, D/O.CHANDUKUTTY.
3. VASANTHA, D/O. CHANDUKUTTY.
4. KESAVAN, S/O. CHANDUKUTTY.
5. CHEKKUNNI, S/O. CHANDUKUTTY.
6. SABEESH, S/O. CHANDUKUTTY.
7. DAMAYANTHI GOPALAN, NEDUTHEDI HOUSE,
8. SATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :31/07/2007
O R D E R
K. Thankappan, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.A. No. 24 of 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed by the complainant against the judgment in
C.C.No.47/98 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kozhikode. The above complaint was filed by the appellant against
respondents 1 to 7 and 1st accused under section 494, 109, 114 read with
section 34 IPC on the allegation that during the subsistence of her marriage
the 1st accused married another lady and the said marriage was conducted at
the instigation and abetment of respondents 2 to 7. To prove the case
against respondents 2 to 7 and the 1st accused the appellant herself was
examined as PW1 and two others were examined as Pws.2 and 3. On the
side of the prosecution Exts.P1 and P2 were marked. After closing the
prosecution evidence respondents 1 to 7 and the 1st accused were questioned
under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegation levelled against them.
On considering the entire evidence the trial court found that the appellant
failed to prove that the 1st accused had married another lady at Tali Temple
Crl.A.24/02 2
as mentioned in the complaint and there was no evidence to show that
respondents 1 to 7 had in any way instigated and abetted the 1st accused for
a second marriage with another lady. Hence, respondents 1 to 7 and the 1st
accused were found not guilty and they were acquitted. Aggrieved by the
above, this appeal has been filed for setting aside the impugned order and
convicting respondents 2 to 7 and the 1st accused.
2. Heard.
3. The specific case set up by the appellant is that during the
subsistence of her marriage the 1st accused married another lady and and the
said marriage was conducted at the instigation and abetment of respondents
2 to 7. To prove the case, the petitioner had produced Exts.P1 and P2.
Ext.P2 is the receipt book of the offerings maintained in the Tali
Devaswom . Ext.P2 would show that some offerings were made to the
Devaswom and there was nothing to show that that offerings were made in
connection with the marriage as alleged in the complaint. The trial court
found that there was nothing to show that Ext.P2 was connected with the
disputed marriage of the 1st accused. It has come out in evidence that PW1
had no direct knowledge about the alleged marriage and her information
was only that passed on by PW2. The trial court after considering the entire
evidence found that the appellant had miserably failed to prove the alleged
Crl.A.24/02 3
complaint against respondents 2 to 7 and the 1st accused.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the view that the judgment of the trial court is on evidence and it requires
no interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed confirming the
judgment of the trial court. The dismissal of the appeal will not stand in the
way of the appellant to proceed against the 1st accused as per law.
K. Thankappan,
Judge.
Mn
Crl.A.24/02 4
K.Thankappan, J.
Crl.A.No. 24 of 2002
Judgement
31-7-2007