RATH, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 being convicted under section 494, I. P. C. for marrying for the second time during subsistence of the first marriage, and respondents 2, 3 and 4 being convicted under sections 494/109, I. P. C. for having abetted the offence but the convictions having been set aside in appeal by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant-wife on leave granted by this Court. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No; 2 is the father of the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 is his alleged second wife while respondent No. 3 is her father. Prosecuting the respondents, it was the case of the appellant that she married the respondent No. 1 on 25. 6. 1975 under the Hindu rites and customs after which the marriage was duly solemnised between the spouses but after one and half months of the marriage the appellant was ill-treated and neglected by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as well as her mother-in-law. Subsequently on 3. 10. 1975 the appellant was left at her fathers house by the respondent No. 2 on a false plea and thereafter on 8. 5. 1979 the respondent NO. 1 got married for the second time to respondent No. 4. The appellant learnt about the second marriage from one Surendra Bose, P. W. 4, and then her uncle, P. W. 2, went to the place of the marriage, found the marriage being performed according to Hindu rites and customs and that thereafter respondents Nos. 1 and 4 are leading conjugal life as husband and wife. ( 3 ) THE defence of the respondents is a total denial of the second marriage while admitting the marriage of respondent No. 1 with the appellant. The further plea of the defence was that the case had been falsely filed since the appellant had lost a maintenance suit against the respondent No. 1 wherein also he denied the second marriage. Two witnesses, of which P. W. 2 belongs to the village of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, were also examined in support of their defence to state that respondent No. 4 is not married to respondent No. 1 and is staying with her father. Two witnesses, of which P. W. 2 belongs to the village of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, were also examined in support of their defence to state that respondent No. 4 is not married to respondent No. 1 and is staying with her father. ( 4 ) THIS being an appeal against acquittal, though the appreciation of evidence by this Court remains the same, yet the: exercise of the appellate power is hedged with the restriction that an acquittal would not be set at naught unless there is an apparent illegality in consideration of the evidence by the acquitting court or that the consideration is one which could be called manifestly perverse and not possible to be reached by any judicial approach because an order of acquittal is not to be interfered with merely because a different view of the evidence could have been taken. Dealing with the question it was held in Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab or follows: The mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous. ( 5 ) MR. Tripathy, the learned counsel for the appellant, has relied upon the evidence of P. Ws. ( 5 ) MR. Tripathy, the learned counsel for the appellant, has relied upon the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3, 5 and 7 as eye-witnesses to the second marriage of respondent No. 1 and on Exts. 1, 2 and 3 as documents in support of such marriage. P. W. 2 is a Muharrir working at Jagatsinghpur and is the uncle of the appellant P W. 1. It is his evidence that P. W. 4 informed him at about 4000 p. m. on the previous day of the marriage that the second marriage of respondent No. 1 was going to be performed the next day. He also stated that coming to know of the marriage from P. W. 7 while he was at Jagatsinghpur he came to his house. It was not stated by him as to what was the information imparted to him by P. W. 7 which made him come from Jagatsinghpur to his house and P. W. 7 also in his evidence did not say of having informed him anything. It is the witnesss case that having learnt of the fact of marriage from P. W. 4 he proceeded at about 5,00 p. m. on the next day, i. e. , the day of the marriage, to the village of respondent No. 1 in the company of P W. 7 and some others who have not been examined all witnesses. They reached the village of respondent No. 1 at about 6. 00 p. m. and seeing the arrangements for marriage being made raised protest there but P W. 2 was insulted by the respondent No I and his father. Respondent No. 1 also insulted him by showing his shoes. In spite of the same they remained at the marriage site till respondent No. 1 married the respondent No. 4 observing all the Hindu rites, while there, P. W. 2 also referred the matter to the local gentlemen, P. W. 3 and one Gajendra Nanda who has not been examined. Such gentlemen also dissuaded the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to have the second marriage. ( 6 ) THE statement of the witness that he left for the village of respondent No. 1 being informed by P. W. 4 of the second marriage is not borne out by the evidence of P. W. 4. Such gentlemen also dissuaded the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to have the second marriage. ( 6 ) THE statement of the witness that he left for the village of respondent No. 1 being informed by P. W. 4 of the second marriage is not borne out by the evidence of P. W. 4. It is his evidence that he learnt of the second marriage of respondent No. 1 and informed the same t6 P. W. 1 and her father. As to how far P. W. 4 is a believable witness shall discuss little later, but at any rate it was never the case of P. W. 4 that he informed P. W. 2 of such marriage. The father of the P. W. 1 has not been examined and she as P. W. 1 stated that P. W. 4 informed her about the second marriage in presence of her neighbours and that there were no male member in her house at home at that time. After receiving such news she sent for her father and uncle on the following day and that on the day she sent information her uncle arrived at about 4. 00 p. m. from Jagatsinghpur. Thus on the statement of P. W. 1. P. W. 4 also never informed about the marriage to P. W. 2 nor to the father of P. W. 1. Further, P. W. 1 stated that she came to know of the proposed second marriage two days prior to the actual marriage and that on the following day she sent information to her father and uncle and that on the very day the information was sent, her uncle P W. 2 arrived at about 4. 00 p. m. from Jagatsinghpur. Thus, she must have received information from P. W. 4 regarding the second marriage on 6th of May and sent information to P W. 2 and her father on 7th of May on which date P. W. 2 arrived. It is however the evidence of P. W. 2 that the very day he arrived from Jagatsinghpur at about 4. 00 pm. he proceeded to the house of respondent No. 1 at 5. 00 p. m. and reached there at 6. It is however the evidence of P. W. 2 that the very day he arrived from Jagatsinghpur at about 4. 00 pm. he proceeded to the house of respondent No. 1 at 5. 00 p. m. and reached there at 6. 00 p. m. If that is so, then P. W. 2 must have reached the village on 7th of May and proceeded to the village of the respondent No. 1 on the very day, but however according to their own evidence, the marriage was not performed on 7th of May but on the 8th. It is also the evidence of P. W. 1 that the day P. W. 2 started for the village of respondent No 1, he knew it to be the date of the marriage Thus the evidence of this witness that he had been to the village of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to witness, the marriage of respondent No. 1 having been informed by P. W. 4 does not inspire confidence. ( 7 ) P. W. 3 is a witness who claims to have attended the second marriage as an invited of the respondent No. 3. He claims to be a good relation of both respondents Nos. 1 and 4. Strangely enough, he, however, admits to have no acquaintance with respondent No. 1 before his marriage with respondent No 4 and stated that he came to the house of respondent No. 1 for the first time to attend his marriage with respondent No. 40 Even if it is taken that he claims to have good relationship with respondent No. 1 through the respondent No. 4, yet he does not appear to have any better idea regarding the respondent No. 4s family and indeed stated that he had no idea about the family affairs of respondent No. 3, the father of respondent No. 4, or that of respondent No 4 herself and made a candid statement that he did not know any other member of the family of the respondent No. 3. Even though he claims to have attended the marriage having received an invitation letter from respondent No. 3, yet stated that respondent No. 3 did not extend invitation to any of his relations or friends excepting him. Even though he claims to have attended the marriage having received an invitation letter from respondent No. 3, yet stated that respondent No. 3 did not extend invitation to any of his relations or friends excepting him. The witness, to say the least, does not appear to be at all a truthful one to vouchsafe that the marriage of respondent No. 1 had taken place with respondent No. 4 as stated by him. The next witness supposed to have witnessed the marriage is P. W. 5. He is a co-villager of respondent No. 1 and claims to have attended the marriage from the side of the bridegroom. Even though such is his case, yet he admits that he had no intimacy or relationship with respondent No. 1. It is rather hard to accept that the marriage which was in TOLAKANYA form was attended to by the witness as an invitee of the respondent No. 1 when he had no relationship or intimacy with him particularly when he also admitted that he was a witness in a case filed by one Alakh Mohanty of the same village against respondent No. 2, father of respondent No. 1. His name also was not mentioned as a witness in the complaint petition stating that he was present at the time the marriage was performed. Admittedly, the complaint was filed about two years after the occurrence and hence the same must have been filed after due deliberation and preparation. P. W. 2 the uncle of the appellant is himself an advocates clerk and so also her own grand-father. It would thus not stand to reason that P. W. Ss name was omitted from the complaint petition as a witness by accident. Even P. W. 3 has stated that no neighbour or relation was invited by respondent No. 1 to attend his marriage with respondent No. 4 and hence the presence of P. W. 5 as a witness to the marriage is not believable. The only other witness to the marriage is P. W. 7 who is supposed to have accompanied P. W. 2 and to have witnessed the marriage. The only other witness to the marriage is P. W. 7 who is supposed to have accompanied P. W. 2 and to have witnessed the marriage. In the petition of complaint there was no mention of any other person's name as having accompanied P. W. 2 to the place of marriage and it had been only stated that the appellant came to know of the second marriage from P. W. 4 and hearing about it her uncle P. W. 2 went to the place of marriage and found the second marriage to be going on in the house of respondent No. 1. Thus, though P. W. 7 was cited as a witness the fact of his having witnessed the marriage had not been mentioned in the complaint petition. Even in the section 202, Cr. P. C. enquiry P. W. 2 admitted not to have named the persons who bad accompanied him to witness the second marriage. Admittedly, P. W. 7 was at Jagatsinghpur on the day of the marriage since according to P. W. 2 it was he who gave him information at Jagatsinghpur. P. W. 2 never stated that P. W. 7 had accompanied him from Jagatsinghpur to their village. While examining the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the marriage, the evidence of P. W. 4 on whose information P. Ws. 2 and 7 were supposed to have proceeded to witness the second marriage has also to be seen. On his own version be saw a Chhamundia in front of the house of respondent No. 1 and asked his father as to why he was getting his son married when his first wife was alive and this was one day prior to the second marriage and learning about such marriage he imparted the information to the appellant and her father with whom he claims to be in visiting terms. In the cross examination he admitted that he had not visited the house of respondent No. 1 and that he heard from the women folk in his maternal uncle's house that respondent No. 1 was getting married for the second time. There is nothing in evidence to show as to how the women folk in his maternal uncles house had knowledge about such fact on that they belong to the same village as of respondent No. 1. There is nothing in evidence to show as to how the women folk in his maternal uncles house had knowledge about such fact on that they belong to the same village as of respondent No. 1. At any rate it appears from his evidence that he thought it fit to convey the information of respondent No. 1 s second marriage to the appellant and her father since the was in visiting terms with their house. P. W. 1 stated that this witness's house is in a different village, two miles away from their house and that even though she knows him yet they are not in visiting terms. P. W. 4 stated that having learnt of the fact of respondent No. 1 going to marry for the second time he came to his own house first and then went to the house of the appellant to convey the information. For a man who has only a passing acquaintance with the family of the appellant the assumption of such a good Samaritan role appears to be rather uncommon. Thus, on an analysis of the evidence of the P. Ws. as above it does not appear as a fact that the witnesses witnessed the second marriage of respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 4 on 8. 5. 1979. ( 8 ) BESIDES such evidence, the appellant has also sought to place reliance on Exts. 1, 2 and 3 as proof of the marriage between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4. Ext. 1 is an entry dated 21. 10. 1982 made in the Birth Register maintained at the Salepur P. H. C. showing a male child to have born to Baidhar Mohanty and Sulochana Mohanty of Sigmapur and information having been sent by Baidhar Mohanty. P. W. 6 has been examined to prove that Sulochana Mohanty wife of Baidhar Mohanty gave birth to a male child. There is no dispute that Baidhar is the alias name of respondent No. 1 and Sulochana is the alias name of respondent No. 4. Such entry in the Birth Register even though would be admissible under section 3s of the Evidence Act, yet would not establish any marriage between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 and would be only admissible to the extent of a male child having been born to them. It is of course contended by Mr. Such entry in the Birth Register even though would be admissible under section 3s of the Evidence Act, yet would not establish any marriage between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 and would be only admissible to the extent of a male child having been born to them. It is of course contended by Mr. Mohapatra for the respondents that the entry does not seem to have been supported by the signature or thumb impression of the informant as required in column 23 thereof but the submission is not correct since all that is required is that if the information is verbal then the same is to be supported by the signature or thumb impression of the informant. The entry as against the column shows the information to have been supplied in a written form and hence the signature or the thumb impression was not necessary. The next document is Ext. 2 which is a bail bond supposed to have been executed by respondent No. 4 in Salepur P. S. Case No. 120 dated 11. 6. 1982 describing herself as the wife of respondent No. 1. The original bail-bond has not been produced. Respondent No. 4 has in her statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. denied to have signed such bail-bond. It is the evidence of P. W. 8, the Sub-Inspector of police that he filed up the bail-bond on the information supplied by respondent No. 4 but that he had no personal knowledge of respondent No. 4, being the wife of respondent No. 1. The best evidence as regards acknowledgement of respondent No. 4 to be the wife of respondent No. 1 would have been by production of the bail-bond itself to show the signature of respondent No. 4 therein, but no steps having been taken in that regard, the statement of P. W. 8 that the had signed the bail-bond in such character cannot be treated as substitute for the best evidence. Ext. 3 is the chargesheet submitted by P. W. 8 in Salepur P. S. Case No. 120 showing respondent No. 4 to be one of the accused and describing her as the wife of respondent No. 1 but such evidence of P. W. 8 is not based upon his personal knowledge as admitted by him and hence is of little worth. Barring such facts, Exts. Barring such facts, Exts. 1, 2 and 3 are also of no avail to the appellant since these documents even though plainly are grossly adverse in their effect against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 yet were not put to them for explanation during their examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. and hence are not available to be taken into consideration as items of evidence against them. ( 9 ) AS regards respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the offence of abetment against them also does not stand to have been proved since there is not an iota of evidence to show that even if a second marriage had been gone into, yet it was to their knowledge that respondent No. 1 had earlier married and that the first wife was living. There being no such evidence the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 could on no account be held guilty under sections 494/109, I. P. C. ( 10 ) IN the result, it must be held that the appellant has not been able to establish the charges against the respondents and hence the appeal must be dismissed as having no merit. Appeal disallowed. .