Judgment This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai under section 494, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The facts of this case giving rise to this revisions are as follows: P.W. 1, the complainant is the first wife of A-1, the petitioner herein. P.W. 1 married the petitioner about six years ago according to customs of their community known as Ambalakarar viz., blowing of horn by a woman, tying of tali and exchange of garlands. P.W. 1 and the petitioner lived together as husband and wife and about 3 months prior to 1st July, 1979, the petitioner sought the consent of P.W. 1 to marry A-2 as his second wife, which P.W. 1 refused to give. On a Friday prior to 1st July, 1979, the petitioner went to the house of P.W. 2 and wanted him to attend the marriage on 1st July, 1979, at Pillaiar Koil. P.W. 2 who is the brother-in-law of P.W. 1 informed P.W. 1 about the same. At the instance of P.W. 1, P.Ws. 2 to 4 questioned the petitioner about the proposed marriage and the petitioner retorted by saying that he has already decided to marry A-2 and there is no necessity for them to interfere. Then, on 1st July, 1979, at about 8 a.m. when P.Ws. 1 to 4 and others went to Pilliaiyar Koil, they saw A-1 tying a thali with a yellow string around the neck of A-2 standing in front of Pillaiyar Idol. Thereafter A-1 and A-2, exchanged garlands while A-8 was blowing horn. The other accused were receiving guests and offering sandal paste and betel leaves etc. All the objections by P.Ws. 1 to 4 were not heeded. P.W. 1 went to the house of the petitioner and found A-1 and A-2 living together. All her attempts to live with him proved to be of no avail and thereafter she issued a notice Exhibit P-1 to the petitioner, who also sent a reply admitting the marriage with P.W. 1, but denying the second marriage with A-2. Thereafter, she has filed a private complaint against A-1 and 8 others. Apart from P.W. 1, P.Ws. 2 to 4 were examined to prove about the factum of marriage of A-1 with A-2. 3. Thereafter, she has filed a private complaint against A-1 and 8 others. Apart from P.W. 1, P.Ws. 2 to 4 were examined to prove about the factum of marriage of A-1 with A-2. 3. The trial Court convicted the petitioner (A-1) under section 494, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. A-7 and A-8 under section 494 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and acquitted A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-9. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, but set aside the conviction of A-7 and A-8 and acquitted them. Hence this revision by A-1. 4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the Courts below ought not to have accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 which is of parrot like repetition and tutored one and highly interested and that there is no evidence to prove that the second marriage of A-1 with A-2 was celebrated according to custom of the community to which they belong. 5. I have carefully gone through the judgments of both the Courts below and the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is the positive evidence of P.W. 1 that her marriage was celebrated according to custom of the community viz., Ambaiakarar by blowing of horn by a woman, tying of tali and exchanging garlands and likewise the second marriage of the petitioner with A-2 was celebrated and that all ceremonies were performed. P.Ws. 2 to 4 have fully corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 in this regard. Nothing was suggested to P.Ws. 1 to 4 by the defence that those ceremonies are not the one which is prevailing in the community of Ambaiakarar, or any other ceremonies including saptapadi which are absolutely necessary according to the custom of their community were performed, to prove the marriage. 6. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision of Sathar Sayeed, J., reported in Annamalai Vanniar and others v. Palaniammal and others1, and, contended that the alleged second marriage was not at all celebrated observing the proper ceremonies, and hence, it is not valid so as to attract the provisions of section 494, Indian Penal Code. 7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision of Sathar Sayeed, J., reported in Annamalai Vanniar and others v. Palaniammal and others1, and, contended that the alleged second marriage was not at all celebrated observing the proper ceremonies, and hence, it is not valid so as to attract the provisions of section 494, Indian Penal Code. 7. It will be very relevant to extract the provisions of section 494, Indian Penal Code, for proper understanding of the case. Section 494, Indian Penal Code, reads as follows: “Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, The essential ingredients of this offence are: (1) that the accused spouse must have contracted the first marriage; (2) that while the first marriage was subsisting the spouse concerned that have contracted a second marriage; and (3) that both the marriages must be valid in the sense that the necessary ceremonies required by the personal law governing the parties had been duly performed. 8. Under section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, “Any marriage between two Hindu solemnised after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, shall apply accordingly.” 9. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides: (1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. (2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the Sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken”. The word ‘solemnised’ used in section 17 clearly indicates that a marriage must be celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form according to the custom of the community to which the parties belong. The word ‘solemnised’ used in section 17 clearly indicates that a marriage must be celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form according to the custom of the community to which the parties belong. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act enjoins that a Hindu marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either parties there to Section 7(2) makes it clear that where such) rites and ceremonies includes the Saptapadi, the marriage is complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. When it is proved that Saptapadi is not a part of the customary rite, it need not be performed. 10. In Gopal Lal v. Slate of Rajasthan1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as follows: “..........It was next contended by Mr. Mulla that there is no legal evidence to show that the second marriage which is said to be a nata marriage was actually performed. We are afraid, we are unable to go into this question because three Courts have concurrently found as a fact that the parties were governed by custom of nata marriage and the two essential ceremonies of this marriage are: (1) that the husband should take a pitcher full of water from the head of the perspective wife; (2) that the wife should wear churn by the husband. 7. There is evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 who have proved the fact that these ceremonies had been duly performed in their presence. That there was such a custom which requires these ceremonies was admitted by D.Ws. 3 and 5, who were examined by the appellant. The evidence led by the prosecution has been accepted by the High Court and the Courts below and after perusing the evidence we are not in a position to hold that the finding of facts arrived by the Courts below are wrong in law or perverse. From the evidence led by the prosecution, therefore, it has been clearly established that the second marriage which was performed by the appellant Gopal Lal with Copi was a valid marriage according to the custom and of the nata marriage prevalent in the Tolli Community to which the appellant belonged..........” 11. From the evidence led by the prosecution, therefore, it has been clearly established that the second marriage which was performed by the appellant Gopal Lal with Copi was a valid marriage according to the custom and of the nata marriage prevalent in the Tolli Community to which the appellant belonged..........” 11. In Dolganti Raghava Reddi2, itwas held that Homam and Saptapadi ceremonies are not essential in the Reddy Community in Telengana area and that marriage performed without such ceremonies is valid and is not hilt by section 494, Indian Penal Code. It was further observed in the said decision that when Homam itself is not there, then no question of Saptapadi around the sacred fire arises because Saptapadi comes only where invocation of sacred fire is prescribed and they go together. Where there is no custom in the community to invoke sacred fire what must follow is that the requirement of Saptapadi also is not necessary. Similarly, in Mallikhajunappa v. Erramma3, it was held that the only essential ceremonies in the marriage of Lingayat Reddy Community are tying of tali and Kankan bandhanam and that Kanyadan and ‘Saptapadi’ do not constitute essential part of the necessary marriage ceremonies. 12. In Kapila Venkata Laxmi v. Kapilu Paroathanarayana4, it was held that when it is proved that Saptapadi is not part of the ceremony of marriage, then it need not be proved otherwise Saptapadi remains as an essential ceremony in a Hindu marriage. 13. In the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is there was a purohit who performed the marriage and Homam was performed and it was observed by the learned Judge in that case as follows: “In this case, the necessary ceremonies that are required by law have not been proved, excepting to the fact that only Homam was performed. When once the contention of the parties is that the marriage has taken place as for the parties to show that ceremonies have taken place as and in the absence of such proof, it cannot be held that the petitioners are liable for an offence under section 494, Indian Penal Code.” In the above cases, the evidence relating to the essential ceremony or ‘Saptapadi’ was lacking even though Homam was performed. Therefore, in the circumstances of the said case it was held that the marriage was not celebrated as per in compliance with the provisions of section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said decision is not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. The decision of the Supreme Court in Gapal Lal v. State of Rajasthan1 referred to above is in all fours applicable to the facts of this case. 14. In the instant case, the prosecution has adduced acceptable evidence through P.Ws. 1 to 4 regarding the custom of the Ambalakarar Community to which the parties belong and also the performance of the required ceremonies in the second marriage. Both the Courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding that the parties are governed by the custom of Ambalakarar Community and three essential ceremonies of the marriage vis., (1) blowing of horn by a woman, (2) tying a tali and (3) exchanging of garlands were proved to their satisfaction. There are no other relevant materials placed before me to show that the current findings of both the Courts below are wrong in law or perverse. Hence, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. 15. The contention of the revision petitioner that P.Ws. 2 to 4 are relations of P.W. 1 and, therefore, their evidence is tainted with interestedness has been rightly repelled by the trial Court placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ban Obula Reddi v. State of Andhra Prodesh2 to the effect that the relationship of the witnesses by itself is not sufficient to reject their testimony if it is otherwise consistent!, clear, cogent and in conformity with natural probabilities so as to contain a ring of truth around it. Further, the trial Court was perfectly correct in accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 on the ground that P.W. 1 being the wife of the revision petitioner, would not have set up P.Ws. 2 to 4 for the purpose of falsely implicating her husband. 16. Therefore, I do not find any manifest illegality or irregularity or gross miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below requiring interference if this Court in this revision. Hence, I confirm the conviction of the petitioner under section 494, Indian Penal Code. 17. 2 to 4 for the purpose of falsely implicating her husband. 16. Therefore, I do not find any manifest illegality or irregularity or gross miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below requiring interference if this Court in this revision. Hence, I confirm the conviction of the petitioner under section 494, Indian Penal Code. 17. As regards the sentence, it is submitted that the petitioner has already served imprisonment for a period of 14 days from 17th July, 1981 to 30th July, 1981, that P.W. 1 was living with the petitioner even after the alleged second marriage, that the complaint was preferred after 4 months and that he is prepared to pay heavy fine, and hence, he may be dealt with leniently. 18. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I feel that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone besides payment of a fine of Rs. 2,500. 19. In the result, the conviction of the petitioner is confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. Further, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500 in default to undergo R.I. for two years. Out of the fine amount collected, a sum of Rs. 2,000 is ordered to be paid to P.W. 1 as compensation. Time for payment of fine amount is two months from the date of receipt of records by the appellate Court. 20. With this modification in sentence, this revision is dismissed.