Important Point - Offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC is a continuing offence.

1 By this revision petition, the revision petitioner/ original accused/husband is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 12/04/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Criminal Appeal No.229 of 2009 thereby confirming his conviction of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for the sake of brevity), so also the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years imposed on him for this offence by the trial Magistrate. Initially, the present revision petitioner along with the coaccused namely Mrs.Jayashree Shinde and Dnyanoba Shinde were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494, 323 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC vide Regular Criminal Case No.249 of 1996 and by the Judgment and Order dated 20/08/2009, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tasgaon was pleased to convict the present revision petitioner along with accused No.2 Mrs.Jayashree Shinde for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and they both were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. Accused No.3 Dnyanoba came to be acquitted of offences alleged against him. The present revision petitioner as well as coaccused Jayashree Shinde were convicted of offences punishable under Section 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, but no separate sentence was awarded for those offences. In addition, compensation of Rs.70,000/was directed to be paid by the revision petitioner/accused No.1 and in default he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. This is how the revision petitioner is coming up before this Court challenging the appellate order of confirmation of his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years apart from payment of compensation and sentence in default.

2. I heard the learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner at sufficient length. By taking me through the FIR lodged by the informant/Suvarna Shinde, the learned Advocate argued that marriage of the revision petitioner with first informant Suvarna was solemnized in the year 1993. Allegations levelled against the revision petitioner/accused are to the effect that the informant/wife stayed with him for a period of five days after the marriage and thereafter for a period of two months after 07/11/1994 when there was compromise between the parties in maintenance proceedings before the Lokadalat. He further argued that during this period of two months, there was no instance of ill-treatment to the first informant Suvarna. By taking me through the cross-examination of P.W.No.1 Suvarna, he argued that she stayed at the house of the revision petitioner only for a period of five days after the marriage and thereafter she was not staying with the revision petitioner till there was compromise in the maintenance proceedings. With this, he argued that averment in the FIR dated 19/11/1996 to the effect that after five days, she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry are patently false. The learned Advocate further argued that entire evidence adduced by the prosecution is hearsay evidence and there is no evidence about physical assault to the first informant/wife. No medical evidence is adduced by the prosecution in support of allegations that the first informant was used to be subjected to cruelty by assaulting and beating her by the revision petitioner/husband. The learned Advocate further argued that after returning from her matrimonial house, it is averred that the first informant/wife stayed with her aunt, but her aunt is not examined by the prosecution to prove ill-treatment to the first informant/Suvarna. It is further argued that the FIR in question came to be lodged on 19/11/1996 whereas the marriage was solemnized on 12/04/1993 and the first informant/wife left the matrimonial house after five days of marriage. With this, it is further argued