She also examined two more witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 .
So far as A1 i.e. husband of the companyplainant is companycerned, he has undergone the sentence awarded to him.
1439 and 1440 of 2005 filed by the respondent.
146 of 2004 in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
We have heard Shri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned senior companynsel appearing for the accused and Shri Rana Ranjit Singh, learned companynsel appearing for the companyplainant respondent.
The accused examined two witnesses in support of their case DW 1 and DW 2 .
147 of 2004 and A2 to A5 preferred Criminal Appeal No.
1440 of 2005.
Learned Sessions Judge, while disposing of the appeals companyfirmed the companyviction but reduced the sentence of the accused to the sentence already undergone by them.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, A1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.
In default, the accused were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
The companyplainant examined herself as PW 1.
After perusing the evidence on record, learned Magistrate held A1 guilty of offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC.
The High Court did number modify the trial companyrts order as regards fine.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused have preferred the present appeals.
A divorce decree was passed on 20.2.1991.
He sentenced all the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ each.
The said judgment was challenged by the companyplainant in the Madras High Court.
She preferred two criminal revision cases being Criminal Revision Case No.
He held A2 to A5 guilty of offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the IPC.
The High Court numbered that numbere of the accused has chosen to prefer any appeal or revision and, therefore, companyviction recorded by the trial companyrt which was companyfirmed by the lower appellate companyrt has become final.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Leave granted.
The respondent Selvamuthukani Selvamuthu is the original companyplainant the companyplainant for short .
Learned companynsel for the accused pointed out that A1 had filed a divorce petition against the companyplainant.
She filed a private companyplaint in the companyrt of Judicial Magistrate No.
The criminal revision cases were thus partly allowed.
1439 of 2005 and Criminal Revision Case No.
These two appeals, by special leave, can be disposed of by a companymon judgment as they challenge the judgment and order dated 24.9.2008 delivered by the Madras High Court in Criminal R.C. Nos.
620 of 1992 against Kannan original accused 1 A1 for short , M. Rangan Chettiar original accused 2 A2 for short , Murugayee original accused 3 A3 for short , K. Palaniammal original accused 4 A4 for short , Ganesan original accused 5 A5 for short and seven others.
It is necessary to state the facts which led to these appeals.
