Sherla V.
wp.2495.2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2495 OF 2018
Smt.Priyanka Atul Mishra … Petitioner
Vs.
Shri Atul Lalmohan Mishra Ors. … Respondents
Mr.M.J. Bhatt for the Petitioner
Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP, for the Respondent – State
CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 12, 2019
P.C.:
1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated
12.4.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thane in
Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2014 rejecting the application filed for
leading additional evidence in appeal filed under section 391 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner/appellant is the original
complainant who has filed a criminal case against the
respondent/original accused under sections 494 and 498A of the
Indian Penal Code. The respondents/accused are acquitted from
all the charges by the learned Judge against which the Criminal
Appeal No.246 of 2014 was filed by the original complainant i.e.,
the petitioner. The application was moved under section 391 of the
Criminal Procedure Code that the original complainant be allowed
Page 1 of 2
::: Uploaded on – 13/02/2019 14/02/2019 00:18:34 :::
wp.2495.2018.doc
to lead evidence of photocopy of the voters’ list wherein the two
names i.e., of the respondent/original accused and his second wife
are mentioned. The said application was rejected by the learned
Sessions Judge and hence, this Writ Petition.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if
at all the petitioner is allowed to lead evidence of the said voters’
list then, she will be in a position to prove the fact of second
marriage. He further submitted that this will enable the petitioner
to lead evidence of second marriage by calling the concerned
witnesses.
3. Perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge;
considered the nature of offence and the evidence which the
petitioner intends to lead. In view of section 494 of the Indian
Penal Code, strict proof of second marriage is required. Hence,
only photocopy of the voters’ list cannot be considered to be a
relevant evidence on this point. The reasoning given by the
learned Sessions Judge is found correct and legal. No interference
is required. The petition is summarily dismissed.
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
Page 2 of 2
::: Uploaded on – 13/02/2019 14/02/2019 00:18:34 :::