Validity of marriage is crucial for conviction under Section 498A IPC.

1. By way of the present criminal revision the applicant has challenged the judgment dated 28.01.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg in Criminal Appeal No. 106/2000.

2. Facts leading to the instant case are that on 01.12.1990 a report was lodged by complainant Bharatram (PW 2) alleging that the present applicant who is the husband of her daughter Manbha Bai and his relatives are harassing, ill treating her daughter and also subjecting her to cruelty. Upon the said report, the Police registered a case against the applicant, his mother Parvat Bai and father Hariram for the offence punishable under S.498A of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the matter was put to trial before the A.C.J.M, Balod in Criminal Case No.1211/90.

3. After completion of trial, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 06.06.2000 reached to the conclusion that the applicant as well as his mother Parvat Bai are guilty of having committed the offence under S.498A of IPC and upon convicting them for the said offence sentenced them to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.1,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. However, father of the applicant Hariram was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

4. The said judgment dated 06.06.2000 was challenged by the applicant as well as his mother before the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod in Criminal Appeal No.106/2000.

5. The Appellate Court also after considering the submissions put forth by the counsel for the applicant and also on perusal of the evidence that has come on record vide its judgment dated 28.01.2004 reached to the conclusion that the applicants are in fact guilty of having committed the offence under S.498A of IPC. However, taking into consideration the age of the mother of the present applicant namely Parvat Bai who at that point of time was more than 75 years, the Court below took a lenient and sympathetic view and reduced the sentence part of Parvat Bai to till rising of the Court but imposed a fine amount of Rs. 2,000 in addition to the fine amount of Rs.1000 which was already imposed by the Trial Court, with default stipulations. As regards the case of the present applicant, the Appellate Court considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, reduced the sentence imposed on the present applicant to RI for one month from that of six months but enhanced the fine amount to Rs.2,000 from that of Rs.1,000, with default stipulations.

6. It is this judgment dated 28.01.2004 which is under challenge in the instant criminal revision.

7. Counsel for the applicant submits that the provision of S.498A could not have been made applicable in the case of the present applicant as the said Manbha Bai was not his actual wife. He further submits that the complainant Bharatram (PW 2) and his daughter Manbha Bai (PW 1) both have accepted the fact that the present applicant was already a married person and that in the complaint the allegation is also against the said wife of the present applicant who is also said to be ill treated Manbha Bai. It was contended by the counsel for the applicant that the complaint itself has been made at a belated stage and no justification has been given for the said delay. It was also contended that the delay caused in lodging of the complaint also makes the case of the prosecution doubtful and therefore the applicant should be granted advantage of the same and he be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

8. Per contra, counsel for the State submits that a bare pe