JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - The Petitioner No. 1 - Srikanta Biswal is the son of Petitioner No. 2 - Narayan Biswal. Both of them stand convicted (as affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal) under Sections 494 and 494 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.P.C.') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for three months. 2. The opposite party filed a complaint (vide Case No. 376 of 1984/ Trial No. 1578 of 1984) in the Court of S.D.J.M.. Kendrapara under Sections 494 and 494/109. I.P.C., on the allegation that she married Petitioner No. 1 on 26.4.1978 in accordance with the Hindu rites and led a happy conjugal life with him for about five years. In the year 1983 she came to her father's house to look after he ailing mother. During her stay in her father's house she learn that her husband (petitioner No. I) had married one Saraswati Biswal for the second time thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 494, I.P.C. Petitioner No. 2 abetted in the commission of the aforesaid offence. 3. The plea of the Petitioners was one of denial. 4. It may be noted that along with the Petitioners, Janaki Biswal (wife of Petitioner No. 2) was also placed on trial and was convicted u/s 494/109, I.P.C. but in appeal she was acquitted. 5. It is relevant to state here that Saraswati was arrayed as one of the accused in the complaint. But as she was reported dead the trial against her did not proceed. 6. Shri Panda contended that assuming that Petitioner No. 1 Srikanta married the opposite party - Anusaya Biswal, there is absolutely no evidence with regard to the second marriage with Saraswati. In the complaint two persons were named as witnesses of second marriage viz. Bhikari Charan Mohanty and Duryodhan Barik but none of them was examined. On the contrary. P.W. 7 who was not named in the complaint was examined whose evidence is full of contradictions and embellishments. Shri Dhal, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand submitted that the witnesses named in the complaint could not be examined they were threatened by the Petitioners. He also submitted that besides the evidence of P.W. 7, the voters' list (Ext. Shri Dhal, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand submitted that the witnesses named in the complaint could not be examined they were threatened by the Petitioners. He also submitted that besides the evidence of P.W. 7, the voters' list (Ext. 8) would indicate that Saraswati is the wife of Petitioner No. 1. 7. In view of the rival contentions, let me therefore examine the evidence of P.W. 7. As per the complaint the second marriage took place on 28.6.1983. As the case rests mainly on the evidence of P.W. 7, his evidence must be reliable. He has not indicated the date of the marriage between Srikanta and Saraswati although he claimed to have attended the marriage on being invited by the father of Petitioner No. 1 Srikanta. According to him, the marriage was in 'Tolakanya' form which started at about 3 P.M.. He claimed to be present throughout the marriage. In the cross-examination he admitted that he could not say the day, date and year of the second marriage. He stated that about ten persons were invited to the marriage, but he could not name anyone of them. He even had not soon any villager present between his house and the house of the Petitioners: He even could not say what rituals were performed in the first and second "Baran as". In the cross-examination, he further exposed himself when he could not say who tied the bridal knot and who removed it. He even could not say who was taking the side of the bride-groom. He admitted that he had not received summons from the Court but on being requested by the complainant he came to depose in the case. The aforesaid being the evidence of P.W. 7, I am not inclined to place any reliance on him. In the voters' list (Ext. 8) at serial No. 418 Saraswati Biswal was described as the wife of Srikanta (petitioner No. 1). The said entry in the voters' list by,itself cannot prove that Petitioner No. I married Saraswati for the second time. 8. Non-consideration of the evidence of P.W. 7 in proper perspective by the Trial Judge as well as by the Appellant Judge has vitiated the conviction. For the reasons aforesaid, the conviction of the Petitioners under Sections 494 and 494/109, I.P.C. cannot be supported. 9. 8. Non-consideration of the evidence of P.W. 7 in proper perspective by the Trial Judge as well as by the Appellant Judge has vitiated the conviction. For the reasons aforesaid, the conviction of the Petitioners under Sections 494 and 494/109, I.P.C. cannot be supported. 9. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed on the Petitioners under Sections 494 and 494/109, I.P.C. is hereby set aside. The revision is allowed. The L.C.R. is sent back forthwith. Final Result : Allowed