JUDGMENT : By Court: No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. is present. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 28.08.2001 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1986 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.05.1986 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gridih in Complaint Case No. 286 of 1984 convicting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years has been affirmed. 3. A compliant case was instituted on the allegation that the complainant was married with the petitioner no. 1 according to Hindu rights and customs and on account of the said marriage two daughters were born to them. It is alleged that after the birth of the second daughter the relationship between them strained and the petitioner no. 1 had solemnized another marriage with a lady namely Tuni Devi on 11.06.1984. It is also alleged that on receiving such information about the impending marriage the complainant accompanied by several persons had gone to Atka Village where she found the petitioner no. 1 in the process of solemnizing marriage with Tuni Devi. Even though the same was protested but they were driven out from the village and assault was also committed upon them. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Complaint Case No. 286 of 1984 was instituted. 5. Upon conducting an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 114 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. After the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate charge was framed pursuant to which the trial proceeded and in course of trial the complainant having been able to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts the petitioners were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced accordingly. 6. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1986 was also dismissed on 28.08.2001. 7. 6. The appeal preferred by the petitioners being Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1986 was also dismissed on 28.08.2001. 7. It appears that initially the case proceeded against six accused persons but during the appeal one of the accused namely Sabtiri Devi had died and the appellate court had set aside the conviction of the second wife of the petitioner no. 1 while sustaining the judgment of conviction against the other accused persons. 8. In course of trial nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. 9. P.W. 3 is the complainant who had stated about the information she had received with respect to the marriage going to be solemnized by the petitioner no. 1 with one Tuni Devi and she had gone to the place of occurrence accompanied by several persons where she had witnessed that the petitioner no. 1 was on the verge of solemnizing marriage with Tuni Devi. This witness has further stated that they were assault and were turned away from the marriage place. P.W. 3 has further stated that the strained relationship between the petitioner no. 1 and herself became evident after the birth of her second daughter. The evidence of P.W. 1 has been supported by accompanying witnesses P.W. 2 and P.W. 4. 10. P.W. 5 is the father of the complainant who though not an eyewitness to the solemnization of the second marriage of the petitioner no. 1 however has stated about the said fact which in fact corroborates what has been stated by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4. 11. P.W. 8 is the six years old daughter of the informant who was very clearly stated about her father marrying for the second time with one Tuni Devi. 12. P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are formal witnesses. 13. P.W. 9, Umesh Prasad, is the brother of the complainant who has also supported the prosecution case and so has P.W. 3. The witnesses therefore had been consistent with respect to the solemnization of marriage of the petitioner no. 1 with Tuni Devi. 14. It further appears that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had attended the marriage and their name have also surfaced in course of evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. Since the factum of solemnization of second marriage by the petitioner no. 1 with Tuni Devi. 14. It further appears that the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 had attended the marriage and their name have also surfaced in course of evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. Since the factum of solemnization of second marriage by the petitioner no. 1 has been conclusively proved by the prosecution they were rightly convicted by the learned trial court which was subsequently affirmed in appeal. 15. There being no reason to conclude otherwise the order of conviction passed against the petitioners is affirmed. However, so far as the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is concerned, it appears that the complaint case was instituted in the year 1984 and after dismissal of appeal the petitioners have remained in custody for sometime and in view of the long pendency of the criminal case coupled with incarceration suffered by the petitioners after dismissal of their appeal, I am inclined to consider the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioners and accordingly the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 16. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.