ORDER : Y.K. Sabharwal, J. - Purandar Sahoo, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 1996 is the father of Niranjan Sahoo, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 498 of 1996. Smt Golapi Sahoo is wife of Niranjan. In July 1986, a complaint was filed by Golapi in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bolangir against the two appellants and three others, namely, Smt Nalina, the alleged second wife of Niranjan, Smt Dukhi, mother of Nalina and Smt Neena Sahoo, mother of Niranjan. It appears that the cognisance was not taken against Nalina and Dukhi. Smt Neena Sahoo died during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Magistrate. 2. In the complaint, it was alleged by Golapi that she is the legally married wife of Niranjan, their marriage having taken place in the year 1976 and that marriage was still subsisting. She averred that Niranjan in the month of February/March 1982 performed second marriage with Nalina despite the subsistence of his first marriage and there being no divorce or severance in the conjugal status at any point of time. It was further averred that before the second marriage she had been driven out from the house by her husband and that she had filed Title Suit No. 49 of 1981 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bolangir for maintenance and other reliefs which had been decreed and execution case bearing No. 3 of 1985 was pending. The further averment in the complaint made by her is to the effect that she could not get any information of the marriage between her husband and Nalina for a long time and meanwhile they gave birth to a son that was named by them as Manas. It has also been alleged in the complaint that the witnesses on learning of the proposed marriage went to the house of Niranjan, requested him not to marry again but he did not pay any heed and went ahead with the second marriage. 3. The complainant Golapi examined five witnesses. Besides herself (PW 1) and father (PW 5), the other three witnesses examined by her were PWs 2, 3 and 4 who all deposed that they had seen the marriage. PW 5 also deposed that the second marriage had taken place in his presence. DW 1 Udaynath Mishra was the sole witness examined on behalf of the accused before the trial Magistrate. 4. PW 5 also deposed that the second marriage had taken place in his presence. DW 1 Udaynath Mishra was the sole witness examined on behalf of the accused before the trial Magistrate. 4. The trial Magistrate, on appreciation of evidence, convicted Niranjan under Section 494 Indian Penal Code and his father Purandar under Section 494 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code and sentenced both to RI for a period of two years each. Their appeal before the Sessions Court and revision petition before the High Court did not succeed. The conviction and sentence was maintained and, therefore, these two appeals have been filed on grant of leave. The complainant is the respondent in these appeals. She has remained unrepresented. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. 6. At the outset, we may notice that ordinarily this Court would decline to reappreciate the evidence but in a given case if the court comes to the conclusion that the appreciation of evidence by lower courts has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, the court may appreciate the evidence. Having examined the record, we are of the view that the present case falls in the excepted category as all the courts have lost sight of the material aspect of the case, namely, filing of the complaint after four years and absence of any explanation as to what was happening during the said period. The delay by itself may not be fatal but it is so in the facts and circumstances of the case which we would presently notice. 7. The first marriage had been solemnised in the year 1976. The testimony of PW 1 as also of her father, PW 5 is that soon after the marriage there were disputes and differences between the husband and wife. After two years of the marriage PW 1 came back to the house of her father PW 5. In 1981, according to her complaint, a title suit was filed by her against her husband claiming maintenance and other reliefs. Her further case is that that suit was decreed and in 1985 execution was also filed and that was pending. 8. The deposition of PW 5 is also that since last 14 years the complainant was staying with him. The further statement of PW 5 is that the second marriage was performed in his presence. Her further case is that that suit was decreed and in 1985 execution was also filed and that was pending. 8. The deposition of PW 5 is also that since last 14 years the complainant was staying with him. The further statement of PW 5 is that the second marriage was performed in his presence. He had seen the marriage ceremonies being performed as per Hindu customs. According to PW 5, after the second marriage Nalina had given birth to two sons through Niranjan. 9. The evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4 who have all deposed to have gone to Village Khari where the second marriage allegedly took place is also to the effect that the second marriage took place in their presence and no heed was paid by the mother of Nalina in not giving her daughter in second marriage to Niranjan as he was already married. 10. As already observed, the Magistrate did not take any cognisance against Nalina and her mother Dukhi. Considering that there were for number of years disputes and differences between the complainant and her husband as noticed earlier, and the complainant was staying with her father and disputes were also pending in the civil court, it would be highly improbable, if not impossible, not to take any step for four years and even when the complaint is filed no explanation is offered for the period between the alleged date of knowledge of the second marriage and the date of the filing of the complaint. Nothing has come on record to show that either any grievance was made to the Panchayat or any complaint was made before the police or any other authority. There are only oral parrot-like depositions of PWs 2 to 5 having seen the marriage. None of them could give any further detail when questioned in the cross-examination. 11. The so-called independent witnesses are from the village of the complainant. They had only gone to Village Khari, where the second marriage allegedly took place, only to persuade Dukhi not to give her daughter in second marriage to Niranjan. Further, despite the deposition of PW 5 that the two sons were born from the second marriage, no evidence was produced in proof thereof. There is not even an iota of evidence against father Purandar. No witness has deposed against him. 12. Further, despite the deposition of PW 5 that the two sons were born from the second marriage, no evidence was produced in proof thereof. There is not even an iota of evidence against father Purandar. No witness has deposed against him. 12. The evidence led by the complainant, on the facts and circumstances of the case, is wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. No reasonable person could have passed an order of conviction on such an evidence, having regard to the facts of the case. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the judgments and orders of the courts below. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments and acquit the appellants. The appellants are on bail. The bail bonds are discharged. Appeals allowed.