R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4-4-1985 of Additional Session Judge, Balaghat, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1984 (arising out of the judgment and order dated 28-7-1984 of judicial Magistrate First Class, Baihar, passed in Criminal Case No. 430 of 1983), whereby conviction of the applicant No. 1 under S. 494 of I. P. C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years; and conviction of applicants Nos. 2 and 3 under S. 494 read with S. 109, I. P. C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months each, has been affirmed. ( 2 ) THE brief history of the case in that the non-applicant Sonvati, claiming herself to be the lawfully married wife of the applicant No. 1 Kashiram, filed a complaint on 31-1-1983, with the allegations that she was married to accused-applicant No. 1 Kashiram in the year 1972. She gave birth to a female child during the continuance of their conjugal relations. The accused-applicant No. 1 Kashiram, who was her husband, and accused-applicant No. 2 Rajaram-father of Kashiram, turned her out of the family house and married one Geetabai in the year 1980, i. e. , in the second half of Hindi calendar month of Baisakha. The accused-applicant No. 2 Chature is the father of Geetabai. It was also alleged that a male child was begotten from Geetabai due to conjugal relations with Kashiram. ( 3 ) AFTER trial, the accused-applicants have been convicted and sentenced as referred above. Their appeal has also been dismissed. Hence, this revision. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has assailed the conviction on the following grounds :- (I) The ceremony of marriage of complainant Sonvati with the accused Kashiram has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) the ceremony of the second marriage with Geetabai has also not been proved and Geetabai is living with the accused Kashiram as a permanent keep; and (iii) lastly it is submitted that the sentence passed against the accused-applicants is excessive. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, supported the case of the prosecution and submitted that the marriage of Sonvati with the accused Kashiram and the second marriage with Geetabai has been proved by the statements of the parties and their relations. ( 5 ) THE prosecution has examined P. W. 1 Sonvati, P. W. 2 Dhaniram, P. W. 3 Govindram and P. W. 4 Sadaram and the defence has examined D. W. 1 Ramswaroop and D. W. 2 Thanuram. After close scrutiny of the evidence, the two Courts, below have given a concurrent finding about the marriage ceremonies of the complainant Sonvati and the second marriage with Geetabai as well. ( 6 ) REVISIONAL Court should not disturb the finding of fact even if it can come to a different conclusion on a close scrutiny of evidence if it is supportable otherwise. However, the conviction has been assailed on factual point and acceptance of inadmissible evidence and, therefore, it would be proper to examine the evidence as well. ( 7 ) THE parties are Hindus and, therefore, are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is reproduced below, provides with respect to ceremonies of marriages - ceremonies for Hindu marriages.- ( 8 ) ( 9 ) P. W. 1 Sonvati has stated in paras 2 and 3 of her statement that her marriage with Kashiram was performed according to Hindu rites and seven steps were taken around the fire. She has cross-examined as enumerated in paras 8 and 9 of statement and nothing could be brought out in that cross-examination, whereby her evidence could be disbelieved on this point. P. W. 2 Dhaniram and P. W. 3 Govindram have stated about the marriage of complainant Sonvati with the accused Kashiram. Nothing substantial has been brought out in the cross-examination of these witnesses with respect to this point. ( 10 ) THE accused-applicant Kashiram, in answer to questions Nos. 1 and 2 in his examination under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has admitted the fact of marriage ceremony with the complainant. Similarly, the accused-applicant Rajaram has also admitted this fact in answer to question No. 1. The accused-applicant Chatur, on the other hand, has denied this fact by giving evasive reply. 1 and 2 in his examination under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has admitted the fact of marriage ceremony with the complainant. Similarly, the accused-applicant Rajaram has also admitted this fact in answer to question No. 1. The accused-applicant Chatur, on the other hand, has denied this fact by giving evasive reply. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 Sonvati has stated that Geetabai is living along with her husband as a wife. However, she was not present at the time of marriage and, therefore, her evidence with respect to marriage of Geetabai is of no avail. P. W. 2 Dhaniram has stated in para 3 of his statement that he was present at the time of marriage between Kashiram and Geetabai. He has also stated that there was a Bhawar ceremony as is usually done in all the marriages of their caste. He has further explained, in para 7 of his statement, that Bhawar ceremony means that the bride and bridegroom take seven rounds around and in the Mandan (Sacred place created for marriage ). In cross-examination, he has further stated that he was present in the Bhawar ceremony. P. W. 3 Govindram has also stated that in his caste, Bhawar is a necessary marriage ceremony. He has further stated that the Bhawar ceremony was performed between Kashiram and Geetabai. He has also stated that he had taken objection to the second marriage, but other relations of Geetabai and Kashiram did not pay heed to it. P. W. 4 Sadaram has also stated about the Bhawar ceremony of the marriage between Kashiram and Geetabai. The two Courts below have believed all these witnesses. I find nothing to disbelieve them. As against it, the accused-applicants have admitted that Geetabai is living with Kashiram. Accused Kashiram has admitted in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. that Geetabai is living with him as a keep and a Churi ceremony was performed. This defence appears to be belated and afterthought. There is absolutely no suggestions regarding this in the cross-examination of Sonvati and other prosecution witnesses. Accused Kashiram has admitted in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. that Geetabai is living with him as a keep and a Churi ceremony was performed. This defence appears to be belated and afterthought. There is absolutely no suggestions regarding this in the cross-examination of Sonvati and other prosecution witnesses. ( 12 ) D. W. 1 Ramswaroop has admitted in para 6 of his statement that both forms of marriage, i. e. Bhawar ceremony and Churi ceremony are recognised in his caste and both forms of marriage is equally accepted in their community, D. W. 2 Thanuram, on the other hand, has stated that the marriage of Geetabai was performed in PAT form. However, he has also admitted that this form of marriage is recognised in their caste. ( 13 ) SECTION 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes the provision for marriage in other form also. However, while performing the marriage, seven steps around the fire has essentially to be taken. In this case, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the marriage of Geetabai was also performed after observing Bhawar ceremony and seven steps were taken around the fire. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that invocation before the fire has not been performed and, therefore, the marriage was not complete. The learned counsel has referred to the cases reported in Kanwal Ram v. H. P. Administration, AIR 1966 SC 614 : (1966 Cri LJ 472); Priya Bala Suresh Chandra, AIR 1971 SC 1153 : (1971 Cri LJ 939); L. Obulamma v. Venkata Reddy, AIR 1979 SC 848 : (1979 Cri LJ 849) and Bhunda Sakru v. Chetram, 1976 MPLJ 600 : (1977 Cri LJ 134 ). I am entirely in agreement with the law stated therein. It is necessary to taken even steps around the fire and performance of "homa", but in this case, the prosecution witnesses have very clearly stated that ceremony of seven Bhaware was performed. It appears that "homa" invocation before the fire is not a necessary ceremony in their caste and, therefore, merely because "homa" invocation before the fire has not been done, the marriage would not become invalid and it has rightly been found by the two Courts below. I, therefore, find nothing to disturb the finding of fact. It appears that "homa" invocation before the fire is not a necessary ceremony in their caste and, therefore, merely because "homa" invocation before the fire has not been done, the marriage would not become invalid and it has rightly been found by the two Courts below. I, therefore, find nothing to disturb the finding of fact. ( 14 ) NOW, so far as the sentence is concerned, it has been argued that the law has been made for enforcing a system of monogamy in the society and, therefore, the sentence passed should not be excessive. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the applicants have flouted the provisions of law and, therefore, strict action is needed. In my opinion, ends of justice would be met if the two accused persons, i. e. Rajaram father of Kashiram and Chatur (Applicants Nos. 2 and 3), are not awarded the substantive sentence of imprisonment. Earlier marriage with complainant and Kashiram was celebrated during their childhood and the second marriage was performed at the instance of the parents of the two persons and, therefore, lesser sentence would also meet the ends of justice. ( 15 ) THE revision is, therefore, accepted with respect to sentence only. Applicant Kashiram is sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and the fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- is maintained. The applicants Rajaram and Chatur are sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 1500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five months each. Revision allowed. .