JUDGMENT

(Smt.) Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals, by special leave, can be disposed of by a common judgment as they challenge the judgment and order dated 24.9.2008 delivered by the Madras High Court in Criminal R.C. Nos. 1439 and 1440 of 2005 filed by the respondent.

3. It is necessary to state the facts which led to these appeals. The respondent - Selvamuthukani @ Selvamuthu is the original complainant ( ‘the complainant’ for short). She filed a private complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Coimbatore being CC No. 620 of 1992 against Kannan (original accused 1 - ‘A1’ for short), M. Rangan Chettiar (original accused 2 - ‘A2’ for short), Murugayee (original accused 3 - ‘A3’ for short), K. Palaniammal (original accused 4 - ‘A4’ for short), Ganesan (original accused 5 - ‘A5’ for short) and seven others. The complainant alleged that she was married to A1 on 16.6.1980. According to her, during the subsistence of her marriage with A1, A1 married A4 and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). The complainant further alleged that by actively assisting and participating in the said marriage ceremony, the other accused abetted the commission of said offence and they are thus guilty of offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the IPC. After perusing the complaint and deposition of the complainant, learned Magistrate framed charge under Section 494 of the IPC against A1 and under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the IPC against A2 to A5. The complainant examined herself as PW-1. She also examined two more witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3). The accused examined two witnesses in support of their case (DW-1 and DW-2). After perusing the evidence on record, learned Magistrate held A1 guilty of offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC. He held A2 to A5 guilty of offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the IPC. He sentenced all the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default, the accused were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, A1 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2004 and A2 to A5 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2004 in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. Learned Sessions Judge, while disposing of the appeals confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence of the accused to the sentence already undergone by them. The said judgment was challenged by the complainant in the Madras High Court. She preferred two criminal revision cases being Criminal Revision Case No. 1439 of 2005 and Criminal Revision Case No. 1440 of 2005. By the impugned judgment the High Court confirmed the finding that A1 had during the subsistence of his first marriage married A4 and was, therefore, guilty of offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC. The High Court also confirmed the finding that A2 to A5 abetted the said offence and hence, they were guilty of offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the IPC. The High Court noted that none of the accused has chosen to prefer any appeal or revision and, therefore, conviction recorded by the trial court which was confirmed by the lower appellate court has become final. The High Court also noted that the accused were on bail throughout and that they had not served any part of the sentence in jail. The High Court was of the opinion that in the circumstances the reduction of sentence done by the lower appellate court cannot be sustained. In the opinion of the High Court the said order was passed without application of mind. In the circumstances, the High Court reduced the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded to A1 to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Sentence of two years each awarded to A2 to A5 was reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment each. The High Court did not modif