Karnataka High Court
Smt Yeshodamma vs Rejanna @ Revanna on 7 June, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19817
CRL.A No. 214 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 214 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SMT. YESHODAMMA
W/O.RAJANNA @ REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDENT OF
HITHALAHALLI KULUMEPALYA
KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI R JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
AND:
1. REJANNA
@ REVANNA
S/O.GANGIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA 2. SMT. H V LATHA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
D/O.VENKATAPPA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SECOND WIFE OF
KARNATAKA
1ST RESPONDENT RAJANAN @ REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF
MUDIGEREPALYA
GOTTIKERE DHAKLE
HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19817
CRL.A No. 214 of 2015
3. VENKATAPPA
S/O.THOPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
4. SMT. GANGA GUDDAMMA
W/O.VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS
OF HOSARANGAIAHNAPALYA
GOTTIKERE DHAKLE
HUTRIDURGA HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M SOMASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1- ABSENT
SRI K B JAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4-ABSENT )
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:13.8.2014, PASSED BY THE SR.
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KUNIGAL, IN C.C.NO.506/2005 -
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498 & 107 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - complainant
praying to set-aside the judgment of acquittal dated
13.08.2014 passed in C.C.No.506/2005 by the Senior Civil
Judge and J.M.F.C., Kunigal, whereunder respondent
Nos.1 to 4 (accused Nos.1, 4, 18 and 19) have been
acquitted for the offence under Sections 494 and 107 of
NC: 2024:KHC:19817
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred
to as 'IPC')
2. None appeared either for the appellant or for the
respondents.
3. The Court has perused the records and proceeding to
pass the judgment.
4. The appellant - complainant has filed a private
complaint against the respondents and others for the
offences under Sections 494 and 107 of IPC. The learned
Magistrate took cognizance and registered
C.C.No.506/2005 against the respondents for the offences
under Sections 494 and 107 of IPC. The respondents have
denied the charges leveled against them for the offences
under Sections 494 and 107 of IPC. The complainant has
been examined as PW1. One Sri.Ramachandraiah, brother
of the complainant has been examined as PW2 and two
other witnesses have been examined as PWs.3 and 4 and
got marked Exs.P1 to P7. The statement of the accused
NC: 2024:KHC:19817
persons came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
The learned Magistrate appreciating the evidence on
record has acquitted the respondents by the impugned
judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal.
5. It is the case of the appellant - complainant that
respondent No.1 is her husband and she has two children
by name Prathibha (daughter) and Bhuvanesh Gowda
(son). It is the case of the complainant that respondent
No.1 during the subsistence of his marriage with the
appellant - complainant and during her life time has
married respondent No.2, and respondent Nos.3 and 4
being the parents of respondent No.2 have abetted
respondent No.1 to marry respondent No.2. According to
the complainant, the said marriage of respondent No.1
with respondent No.2 has taken place on 31.05.2004 in
Someshwara Swamy temple situated near Doddakere. As
per the complainant (who has been examined as PW1),
she came to know about the second marriage of
respondent No.1 with respondent No.2 through his brother
NC: 2024:KHC:19817
Sri.Ramachandraiah (PW2). As per PW2, he came to know
about the marriage of respondent No.1 with respondent
No.2 through PW3 - Sri.Narasimha Murthy and PW4 -
Sri.Ganganna. PW2 in his evidence has deposed that he
came to know about the marriage of respondent No.1 with
respondent No.2 which is the second marriage through
PW3 - Sri.Narasimha Murthy and PW4 - Sri.Ganganna.
The said aspect would indicate that PW1 had no personal
knowledge of the alleged marriage of respondent No.1
with respondent No.2. PW3 - Sri.Narasimha Murthy has
deposed that he and PW4 - Sri.Ganganna were grazing the
cattle near Kunigal lake and there is a Someshwara
temple. There, the accused persons along with 20 to 30
others have gathered and when he enquired accused No.1,
he told them that they have come for a marriage. He
further deposed that he stood outside the temple and they
all went inside the temple and he did not know whose
marriage has taken place and who was the bride and the
bridegroom. PW4 has also deposed similar to that of PW3.
PWs.3 and 4 have turned hostile and in their cross
NC: 2024:KHC:19817
examination, nothing could be elicited to prove the second
marriage of accused No.1/respondent No.1 with accused
No.4/respondent No.2. The documents produced namely
Ex.P1 - printed marriage invitation, Exs.P2 and P3 -
school admission certificates and Exs.P4 and P5 - birth
certificates, would indicate the marriage of respondent
No.1 with the complainant and birth of a daughter and a
son to them. Ex.P6 is the list of pregnant women run by
the Anganawadi Centre, Kunigal pertaining to
Kallanayakana Halli, wherein at Sl.No.34, there is a
mention of name of one Smt.Latha and her husband's
name is mentioned as Sri.Rajanna and her pregnancy is
mentioned as the second pregnancy. Whether the said
Smt.Latha is respondent No.2 and Sri.Rajanna is
respondent No.1 as mentioned in Ex.P6, is not forthcoming
from the evidence of the complainant. Even the village
Kallanayakana Halli is not the village in which respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are residing. Even the evidence of PWs.1 to 4
does not establish that respondent Nos.3 and 4 - parents
NC: 2024:KHC:19817
of respondent No.2 abetted the second marriage of
respondent No.1 with respondent No.2.
6. Considering all these aspects, the learned Magistrate
has rightly acquitted the respondents by the impugned
judgment of acquittal for the offences under Sections 494
and 107 of IPC. In the result, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
