Parul Dixit vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 11282 Raj

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 188/2020

Parul Dixit D/o Sri Dilip Dixit, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Rarikrama Road, Bada Bazar Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand. At
Present Resident Of 102, Ratakhet, Harshnagar, Udaipur (Raj.).
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                     Versus
1.       State of Rajasthan.
2.       Sanjay Singh S/o Narayan Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Village
         Aagariya, Police Station Aamet, At Present Resident Of
         Sukhadiya Nagar, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.).
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. B.S. Sandhu with
                                 Mr. Ankur Limba
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
                                 Mr. Arun Dadhich



       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                      Order

09/09/2022

       This Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

has been preferred against the judgment dated 13.07.2020

passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Cases) No.2, Udaipur in

Special Sessions Case No.129/2020 (CIS No.68/20) in connection

with FIR No.263/2016 registered at Police Station Hiranmagri,

District Udaipur, whereby the accused-respondent No.2 has been

acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 366, 376 &

384 of IPC.

       Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of

this   Court    towards    the    statement          rendered      by   PW-1,   the

prosecutrix, in which, the complete allegations have been levelled



                      (Downloaded on 13/09/2022 at 09:51:07 PM)
                                                                            (2 of 2)                 [CRLLA-188/2020]



                                   regarding the conduct of the accused-respondent. Learned counsel

                                   further submits that the prosecutrix was kept under dark

                                   regarding the previous marriage of the accused-respondent and

                                   under a misconception that he would marry her, the sexual

                                   relationship was established by the accused-respondent. Learned

                                   counsel also submits that all the times, the first marriage of the

                                   accused-respondent was concealed by the accused-respondent

                                   whereas he did not have a valid divorce.

                                        Learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that it

                                   is not a case of bigamy. Learned counsel further submits that the

                                   appellant and the accused-respondent known each other since

                                   2008. Learned counsel also submits that there was a daughter out

                                   of the said association. Learned counsel further submits that in

                                   the year 2018, they had married each other.

                                        After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

                                   perusing the record of the case, this Court is satisfied that the

                                   conclusion arrived at by the learned court below is justified; a

                                   prolonged relationship is not disputed; the appellant and the

                                   accused-respondent were in association since 2008; there was a

                                   daughter, who was born in year 2013; the marriage was taken

                                   place in the year 2018; the learned trial court is right in holding

                                   that this is not a case of bigamy.

                                        In view of the above, no reason to interfere in the judgment

                                   passed by the learned trial court is made out, hence, the criminal

                                   leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications

                                   stand disposed of.

                                                                 (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

54-Zeeshan

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)