' This Criminal Appeal arises from the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Kot Addu whereby he on 10-8-1981 acquitted Mst. Jannat Mai and ten others, the respondents of the charge under section 494/109, P . P. C .
2. The prosecution case was that Mst. Jannat Mai having a husband married Sohara respondent No, 3 during the life time of her husband and that co-respondents had abetted the commission of offence under section 494, P.P.C. The complaint was filed by Abdul Majid, the first husband of Mst.
Jannat Mai. In order to prove his case, he appeared as P.W.1 and produced Ahmad Bukhsh P.W.2 and tendered in evidence the copy of the judgment P.2 and decree P.A. The respondents when examined denied the incriminating circumstances and produced Dil Mir and Sardar in defence.
The trial Court acquitted the accused on 10-8-1981. The appellant moved application for the grant of special leave to appeal which was allowed on 10-4-1982.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have been acquitted without legal justificaton and that the trial Court had not taken into account the documentary evidence i,e, Exhs. P.2 and P.A., adduced by the complainant/appellant which shows that in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant against respondent Mst. Jannat Mai, it was found that Mst.
Jannat Mai was legally wedded wife of Abdul Majid appellant. As against this the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I do not feel inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as I find that the prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove the marriage of Mst. Jannat Mai with Sohara respondent. As for Nikahnama Exh.P.3, the same was not put to the respondent accused when they were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. And as such the same has to be excluded from consideration. The complainant as well as the witnesses produced by him were not present at the time when Nikah of Sohara with Mst. Jannat Mai was allegedly performed.
5. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Acquittal maintained.