O R D E R

The petitioner has preferred the above Revision challenging the Jugdement of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore passed in C.A.No.25 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015 confirming the Judgement of conviction passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, Vellore District in C.C.No.94 of 2008 dated 13.03.2015 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 494 IPC and sentencing him to three years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and in default to suffer two months S.I.

2.The case of the respondent/complainant was that she got married to the petitioner herein on 11.09.2000 and while the marriage was subsisting, he with the aid of the other accused shown in the complaint married the 3rd accused one Karpagam and thus committed the offence under Section 494 IPC. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent and the documents produced on her side found that the bigamous marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was established. The Appellate Court confirmed the said findings of guilt of the petitioner based on the records available.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below had wrongly convicted the petitioner and that the eye witness to the alleged bigamous marriage was no more and hence, he was not examined on the side of the prosecution. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court had erroneously relied upon Ex.P.3 which is an application filed by the petitioner, seeking for a benefit under a Scheme called Moovalur Ramimirtham Memorial Scheme, wherein the photographs of the petitioner and the second wife were affixed.

4.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that both the Courts below had appreciated the evidence in the the correct perspective and in any event there is no perversity in their findings. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that as per Ex.P.3 the petitioner and his second wife who was originally shown as accused had jointly applied for the benefit under Scheme, wherein their marriage date was shown as 23.04.2007. The learned counsel also submitted that the trial Court therefore rightly convicted the petitioner and acquitted the remaining accused two to seven as there was no evidence against them.

5.We find that the respondent has established that the fact that the petitioner had married one Karpagam who was originally arrayed as A3 in the complaint on 23.04.2007. In our view both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence of the Respondent and Ex.P.3 document which established the fact that the petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 494 IPC. The trial Court besides imposing the sentence of 3 years R.I had imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and ordered that the entire fine amount should be applied in the payment of compensation to the respondent herein.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been in custody for nearly two months. The suspension of sentence petition filed by him on 26.04.2017 discloses that he was in the custody for 30 days. The bail was granted to him by the order of this Court on 24.05.2017. Therefore, we see that the petitioner was in custody for nearly 2 months. Hence, we are of the view that the interest of Justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to period undergone by the petitioner and he is directed to pay a compensation under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C to the respondent.

7.The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent had suffered enormous loss because of the fact that the petitioner had abandoned her and her daughter who is at present pursuing her college education and she had to bring up her daughter all alone.

8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to direct the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the loss suffered by her on account of th