VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD,J. - (1.) This criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401, Cr PC is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as also by the appellate Court in G.R.Case No. 744/1991 T.R. No. 696/1995 and in Cr. Appeal No. 41/96 by the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa and Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West, respectively.
(2.) THE trial Court convicted the revisionist for an offence under Section 498 -A, IPC and awarded a punishment of 3 years and the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence of punishment. Originally, the other in -laws were also tried along with the revisionist, but they had already been acquitted by the trial Court itself. The prosecution case arose out of the fact that the informant, PW 3, Modina Khatoon, lodged a written statement before the police, Ext. 1, stating therein that she had been married with the revisionist on 4.11.1990 and thereafter some documents of marriage were prepared and thereafter she stayed in the house of her Mama along with her husband and she went to her sasural along with her husband where she was tortured and assaulted by her in -laws and father of the husband asked that unless she brought a T.V. and T.V.S. Champion with Rs. 5000/ - cash, she would be thrown out of the house. Thereafter on 7.11.1990, she was assaulted, expelled out of the house and even threatened that if she came back, she would be killed. Thereafter she met D.C. and filed this complaint. Charges were leveled against all the in -laws including the revisionist under Section 498 -A, IPC.
(3.) IN this revision, three grounds have been taken to assail the Impugned judgments - -(i) only on the evidence of the interested witnesses, conviction has been made, (ii) the marriage itself is disputed and in absence of proving of the marriage, no conviction under Section 498, IPC could be there and therefore, the finding, of the learned trial Court on solemnization of the marriage and consequent conviction thereon is illegal and (iii) the informant would have taken the recourse under the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.;