A.K. Choudhary, J.

1. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 07.07.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Koderma in Cr. Appeal No.36 of 2008 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2008 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in G.R. Case No.143 of 2002 Trial No.143 of 2008, whereby and where under the petitioner on being found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. The petitioner has also been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the informant married the petitioner as per the Muslim Rights and Rituals about four years prior to the occurrence. Sometime after her marriage, she was assaulted in connection with the demand of a T.V. and a motorcycle. Her father paid certain amount to pacify the matter. On 05.03.2002, at about 2 p.m. the petitioner took the informant near the well while assaulting her and attempted to throw her inside the well. On hue and cry being raised by the informant, she was saved. On the basis of written report submitted by the informant Jai Nagar P.S. Case No.27 of 2002 was registered for the offence punishable under section 498A/341/342/323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. On submission of charge-sheet, the petitioner along with her family members were put on trial. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In course of trial, the prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined six witnesses. P.W.-1 Rahis Khan, P.W.-2 Niyamat Khan, P.W.-4 Hasina Khatoon, P.W.-5 Moin Khan, P.W.-6 Md. Faruque have inter-alia stated about the marriage, demand of dowry and the assault by the petitioner. P.W.-3 Shama Khatoon is the informant. She has corroborated the averments made in her written report in para-10 of her cross-examination. She has stated that the petitioner divorced her prior to occurrence. In his defence, the petitioner has examined Md. Nain Khan as D.W.-1.

5. The learned Magistrate after the trial convicted the petitioner only for the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 but acquitted all the co-accused persons of this revision petitioner.

6. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was challenged before the appellate court and appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court.

7. At the time of hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as admitted by the informant victim in her cross-examination, since no valid marriage was subsisting between the petitioner-convict and the informant-victim, at the time of occurrence, hence the petitioner was not the husband of the informant at the time of occurrence so no offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. is made out. Further it was submitted that the materials available in the record is insufficient to bring home the charges for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand defended the impugned judgment passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court and submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court or the appellate court hence, this revision application being without any merit be dismissed.

9. So far as the contention of the petitioner that no valid marriage was subsisting at the time of commission of alleged occurrence is concerned, the same was raised by the petitioner both in the trial court as well as in the appellate court.

10. The trial court in para-8 of the judgme