1. Being aggrieved by dismissal of complaint filed by her against accused Nos.1 to 7, for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short), appellant, who is the complainant has filed this appeal under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C' for short).

2. Vide order dated 01.06.2011, the appeal is admitted as against accused Nos.1 and 2 only and dismissed so far as accused Nos.3 to 7 are concerned.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

4. Complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against accused Nos.1 to 7 alleging offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 and 109 of IPC. It is the case of the complainant that she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1, their marriage having solemnized during 1982 at Dharmastala in accordance with the customs, usages and rituals prevailing in their community. They lived together as husband and wife and they are blessed with a daughter and two sons. However, after three years of marriage, accused No.1 started harassing and ill-treating the complainant demanding Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry. He insisted upon selling 6 acres of land standing in the name of complainant. Since accused No.1 failed and neglected to maintain complainant and the children, O.S.No.44/2000 was filed against him for maintenance.

4.1 It is the further case of the complainant that when things stood thus accused No.1 has secretly married accused No.2 on 12.02.2000 at Kalathagiri, Chikkamagaluru in the presence of accused Nos.3 to 7. They have abeted the second marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.2. Suspecting the behaviour of accused No.1, during March, 2000, complainant filed a criminal complaint before the Ajjampura Police Station. After making enquiry, the concerned Police issued endorsement dated 28.04.2000 stating that during enquiry, accused No.1 admitted of having contracted second marriage with accused No.2 and hence, the complaint.

5. After recording sworn statement of complainant and her witnesses, the trial Court took cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 7 and issued summons.

6. Accused appeared through counsel and secured bail. Trial Court has framed charge against accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 and 109 of IPC. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. In order to bring home guilt to the accused, complainant has examined herself as PW-1 and two witnesses as PWs-2 and 3. She has got marked Exs.P-1 to P-20.

8. During the course of their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, accused have denied the incriminating evidence.

9. Though accused have not led any defence evidence, during the evidence of complainant's side, they have got marked Exs.D-1 to D-3.

10. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1 to 7 of all the charges.

11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel representing the complainant submitted that the impugned judgment and order is illegal, perverse, besides being erroneous and as such liable to be set aside. Though the complainant has proved the second marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.2 with cogent and convincing evidence, the trial Court has wrongly brushed it aside.

11.1 Learned counsel for complainant would further submit that the trial Court has rejected the evidence led by the complainant on flimsy ground that the relatives of accused No.1 are not examined to prove the second marriage. In the light of documentary evidence including the school and hospital records regarding the birth of daughter to accused Nos.1 and 2 which is not disputed by the accused persons and testimony of PWs-1 to 3, the charges levelled against accused persons are proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the impugned judgment and order are liable to be set aside and prays to allow the appeal..

12. On the other hand, during the course of arguments, learned counsel representing accused Nos.1 and 2 argued and submitted that inspite of leading elaborate evidence, complainant has failed to examine any of the persons who attended the alleged marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2. She has also not examined any witness to prove the holding of essential rituals including the purohit who performed the alleged marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2. In the absence of evidence of witnesses as to the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record is not sufficient to prove the allegations against the accused and rightly the trial Court has dismissed the complaint and prayed to dismiss the appeal also.

13. Heard arguments and perused the records.

14. Thus, at the instance of complainant, accused Nos.1 to 7 are being prosecuted on the allegation that inspite of subsisting marriage between complainant and accused No.1, he has contracted second marriage with accused No.2 and accused Nos.3 to 7 abeted the same. Since the present appeal is admitted as against accused Nos.1 and 2 only, it is to be examined whether the allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 are proved beyond reasonable doubt calling for interference with the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court.

15. The relationship between complainant and accused No.1 and that they are blessed with three children is not in dispute. Admittedly, complainant who is examined as PW-1 is not a witness to the alleged second marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, her evidence on that aspect is hearsay. Complainant has relied upon the evidence of PW-2 Dr.Uday Shetty in whose clinic accused No.2 has given birth to a daughter begotten through her marriage with accused No.1. Though he has deposed that as per the hospital records one Pushpa, W/o Umakanth Reddy has given birth to a daughter on 14.12.2001, he has not identified accused No.2 as the said Pushpa and expressed his inability to identify all the patients, who take treatment in his hospital. He has also not identified accused No.1 as the husband of said Pushpa who delivered a child in his hospital. Therefore, inspite of placing documentary evidence on record to the effect that a girl child was born to parents by name Pushpa and Umakanth Reddy at the hospital run by PW-2, complainant has failed to prove they are accused Nos.1 and 2.

16. PW-3 Paramjyothi is the Headmistress of SJM English Medium School, where allegedly the daughter of accused Nos.1 and 2 by name Vinayakrishnaveni S.U is studying. Through her complainant had got produced admission application of the said child at Ex.P16. In fact PW-3 has identified accused Nos.1 and 2 as the parents of said Vinayakrishnaveni S.U. During her cross-examination also she has consistently maintained that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the said child and she is able to identify them as Vinayakrishnaveni S.U won a prize for good handwriting and both accused attended the prize distribution function and as such she is able to identify them. In the light of the evidence of PW-3, complainant is able to establish that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of Vinayakrishnaveni S.U, studying in SJM English Medium School.

17. However, fact remains that complainant has not led any evidence with regard to the solemnization of marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2. In fact in the complaint, she has specifically pleaded that suspecting the behaviour of accused No.1 she filed a police complaint during March 2000 and on enquiry by the concerned police, accused No.1 admitted having contracted second marriage with accused No.2. During her cross-examination, complainant who is examined as PW-1 has deposed that from the friends of accused No.1 by name Bukkambudi Rajanna and Anjaneya, she came to know about the marriage of accused Nos.1 and 2. However, complainant has not chosen to examine these two persons or any person who attended the said marriage. At least she could have examined the Purohith who performed the said marriage. In the absence of evidence of those persons who attended or performed the marriage, any amount of evidence with regard to accused Nos.1 and 2 having a daughter or she attending a school would be of no avail to prove the charges leveled against accused Nos.1 and 2.

18. In order to establish the allegation of bigamy, performance of marriage with essential ceremonies is mandatory. In the absence of proof of essential ceremony, proof of co-habitation between accused Nos.1 and 2 is not sufficient to bring home guilt to the accused so far as charge of bigamy is concerned. Consequently, the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused persons and I find no reason to interfere with the same.

In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.