Mere presence at the time of marriage does not constitute abetment.

First accused for an offence under Section 495 I.P.C. and accused 2 to 7 for an offence under Section 495 read with Section 109 I.P.C. faced trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Madurai. The learned Magistrate acquitted accused 5 to 7 and convicted accused 1 to 4 as charged and sentenced them to six months rigorous imprisonment. Against the conviction and sentence, accused 1 to 4 filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Madurai in Crl. A.P. 13 of 1979, The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The present petition is by accused 1 to 4 against the conviction and sentence confirmed by the lower appellate court

2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows : Accused 1 and 4 are the sons of accused 2 and 3. The complainant, P.W. 1, was living with her maternal uncle, P.W. 2. Accused 2 to 4 negotiated marriage alliance for the first accused and P.W. 1 and negotiations were successful and P.W. 1 and the first accused were married on 27-3-1978, in Tiruparankundram Murugan temple. After a few days of the marriage, P.W. 1 came to know that the first accused had already married one Rakkammal, examined as P.W. 3 in the case and that marriage is still subsisting when her marriage with the first accused took place on 27-3-1978. When she enquired about the first marriage with Rakkammal, the first accused could not reply her properly and instead taking her thali he went away. After enquiry, P.W. 1 came to know that the present petitioners (accused 1 to 4) along with accused 5 to 7, in the trial court, were alone responsible for her marriage with the first accused on 27-3-1978, concealing the fact that the first accused was already married to Rakkammal. In support of her case P.W. 2, her maternal uncle and P.W. 3, the first wife of the first accused, were examined. P.W. 4, is also a witness on her behalf, who is a clerk in Thirupparankundram Subramaniaswami Koil temple, who speaks to the fact that on 27-3-1978, the first accused and P.W. 1 got married in the temple, after the first accused producing Ex. P.4 to the effect that the first accused was not married previously

3. The petitioners admit the fact that the first accused was married to P.W. 1 on 27-3-1978. They also admit to the fact that the first accused was married to Rakkammal previously. But their defence is that the marriage of the first accused with Rakkammal was dissolved by a divorce. On their behalf, they examined D. Ws. 1 and 2 to prove to the fact of divorce

4. On 27-3-1978, the first accused got married to P.W. 1, is spoken to by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and proved by Ex. D. 1, the invitation. This has been admitted by the accused. The fact that the first accused was married to P.W. 3 was also admitted by the accused. The defence of the accused that there was a divorce between first accused and P.W. 3 is spoken to by D.Ws. 1 and 2. They rely on Ex. D. 2, the divorce deed. In Ex. D. 2, P.W. 3's alleged thumb impression and signature are there. But PW. 3 states in her evidence that she cannot write. It is very suspicious why Ex. D. 2 should contain the signature as well as the thumb impression. Even though attempts were made in the lower court to send the thumb impression for Finger Prints expert, the counsel for the accused withdrew the petition. The copy of Ex. D. 2 is alleged to be Ex. P. 5 and claimed by D.W. 2 to have been written by him. Even in Ex. P. 5 Rakkammal's name is there and the thumb impression is also there. There are some witnesses mentioned in Ex. P. 5. But the number of witnesses in Ex. P. 5 and Ex. D. 2 do not tally. That Exs. D. 2 and P. 5 were simultaneous documents, as claimed by the accused at the time of the divorce, cannot be accepted

5. In Ex. D. 2, four witnesses are mentioned, out of which only D.W. 1 has been examined. D.W. 1's evidence is unsatisfactory. Even though he claims that in the Panchayat for the divorce between the firs