Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 89 (PAT)

Rabindra Prasad Verma v. State Of Bihar

2002-01-18

S.N.PATHAK

body2002
Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.7.2000 passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bettiah, in Cr. Appeal No. 35/98, whereby the appellate Court confirmed the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, in Complaint case No. 219/85, trial No. 565/ 98. Revisionist No. 1 was convicted under Section 494, IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for one year and revisionist No. 2 was convicted for the offence under section 494 read with Section 109, IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 3 month. 2. It has been submitted by the revisionists lawyer that in the lower Courts, there was sole evidence of PW 1, barber, who was examined exactly on the point of marriage of revisionist No. 1 with the daughter of revisionist No. 2. Other witnesses are just hearsay witnesses, regarding marriage of petitioner. The alleged 2nd wife of revisionist No. 1, Nanda Devi, was examined as DW 2 who denied her marriage with revisionist No. 1. Accused-revisionist No. 2 was examined and he said that he had married his daughter to one Rajni Kant Verma from whose wedlock a son was born. In this connection, it was alleged that the hospital records were forged rather manipulated to show the son of Nanda Devi, as the son of one Rajni Kant Verma, Whatever may be the case, the simple point before the lower Court was as to whether there was sufficient evidence regarding 2nd marriage of revisionist No. 1 specially with the daughter of revisionist No. 2. The trial Court convicted the accused-regisionist on the basis of the evidence on record, which I have already stated, as submitted by the revisionist lawyer. 3. Of course, on record, I find that as far as marriage in particular is concerned, there is the only evidence of PW 1, Barber, who is resident of mohalla Ganj No. 2, Bettiah, and he stated that he was carried by Surendra Kumar Shrivastava to Veerganj to marry his daughter. Barber spoke of marriage, but it is not explained on the record as to why Surendra Kr. Shrivastava had gone to Veerganj to marry revisionist No. 1 with his daughter. Moreover, Barber is not very much competent to speak on the point of the marriage in particular. Barber spoke of marriage, but it is not explained on the record as to why Surendra Kr. Shrivastava had gone to Veerganj to marry revisionist No. 1 with his daughter. Moreover, Barber is not very much competent to speak on the point of the marriage in particular. In such circumstances, 2nd marriage of revisionist No. 1 with the daughter of revisionist No. 2 should have been proved by more reliable and cogent evidence, specially the evidence of priest for performing the alleged marriage. Therefore, there was no insufficient evidence on the basis of which conviction recorded by the two lower courts could be legally based no Conviction can be had on insufficient. unreliable evidence. 4. So the Court should not have recorded an order of conviction on assumption or presumption, when the lady in question denied her marriage with Rabindra Prasad Verma (Revisionist No. 1). 5. In the result, I am of the opinion that the order of conviction recorded by the two Courts below is vitiated by legal flow. This revision is allowed. Accused-revisionists shall stand acquitted.