JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 18.10.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2012 by which their challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 12.09.2012 passed in G.R. Case No. 268 of 2007 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 419 of 2012 has failed. 2. The petitioner no. 1 is said to have married the complainant-Gitali Rai and the petitioner no. 2 is mother of the petitioner no. 1. 3. Briefly stated, on an allegation that after the marriage the petitioners started harassing and inflicted cruelty upon her for demand of dowry, a written report dated 08.06.2007 was given to the police by the complainant on the basis of which a First Information Report being Barharwa P.S. Case No. 63 of 2007 was lodged. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-petitioners for the offence under section 498-A/34 I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and cognizance of the offence was taken. After the charges for the aforesaid offences were framed against the accused persons, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and on behalf of the defence one witness has been examined. 4. The defence witness is none other than wife of the accused-petitioner no. 1. 5. The trial judge has convicted the accused-petitioners for offence under section 498-A I.P.C. and under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On appeal, their conviction under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been set-aside. 6. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that unless it is proved that the victim lady is legally-married wife of the accused, the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. is not attracted against the accused-husband and/or his relatives. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 369 . 7. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 369 . 7. In Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) accepting the contention raised on behalf of the accused that in case of a void marriage offence under section 498-A I.P.C. is not attracted, the Supreme Court has quashed conviction of the accused for the offence under section 498-A I.P.C. 8. In U. Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 757, the Supreme Court has observed that living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same would not attract the wrath of Section 498-A of the Penal Code. Referring to the decision in U. Suvetha, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunita Jha vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 10 SCC 190 , has observed as under: “15. Section 498-A IPC, as extracted hereinabove, is clear and unambiguous that only the husband or his relative could be proceeded against under the said section for subjecting the wife to “cruelty” which has been specially defined in the said section in the Explanation thereto. The question as to who would be a relative of the husband for the purpose of Section 498-A has been considered in detail in U. Suvetha case. We are entirely in agreement with the views expressed in the said case and we agree with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge of the High Court committed an error in bestowing upon the appellant the status of wife and, therefore, a member of Mukund Chandra Pandit's family.....” 9. Ingredients of Section 498-A of the Penal Code are: (a) the woman must be validly married to the accused; (b) she was subjected to cruelty or harassment and (c) such cruelty or harassment must have been inflicted either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband. Ingredients of Section 498-A of the Penal Code are: (a) the woman must be validly married to the accused; (b) she was subjected to cruelty or harassment and (c) such cruelty or harassment must have been inflicted either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband. The opening line of section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 “whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman” makes it ample clear that the victim lady must be the legally-wedded wife of the accused and the accused persons are relatives of the husband or the husband himself. A valid marriage of the accused, who according to the victim lady is her husband, with the victim lady therefore is sine qua non for constituting an offence under section 498-A I.P.C. 10. The plea raised on behalf of the accused persons, that the complainant is not the legally-married wife of the petitioner no. 1 and therefore offence under section 498-A I.P.C. is not made out against them, has been rejected by the trial judge on the ground that the complainant had no knowledge about marriage of the petitioner no. 1 with Rakhi Ghosh. The accused persons reiterated their stand before the appellate court which is recorded in paragraph no. 3 of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2012. However, the appellate court has not adverted to the finding recorded by the trial judge on this issue in the context of the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the accused persons. The wife of the petitioner no. 1 namely, Rakhi Ghosh has been examined as a defence witness and it is not in dispute that during subsistence of his marriage with Rakhi Ghosh the petitioner no. 1 is said to have contracted marriage with complainant-Gitali Rai. This fact has been brought in the proceeding of T.R. Case No. 419 of 2012 and has been duly recorded in paragraph no. 20 of the appellate order, which reads as under: “20. Here in the instant case it came in evidence as stated by accused that Mohan Ghosh @ Gorango Ghosh had already performed marriage with another woman and inspite of that he had performed another marriage concealing the fact of performing first marriage and it also amounts to cruelty to Gitali Rai.” 11. The prosecution witnesses have stated that marriage of the petitioner no. The prosecution witnesses have stated that marriage of the petitioner no. 1 with the complainant-Gitali Rai was performed in a temple. Some of the witnesses have stated that the complainant stayed with the petitioner no. 1 for 2-3 months and some have stated that she stayed with the petitioner no. 1 for about one year and thereafter she is staying at her parents' place. Statement of the prosecution witnesses and their cross-examination indicate that marriage of the complainant with the petitioner no. 1 was not known to the members of the society. The priest who claims that he has performed the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner no. 1 on 28.11.2005 at Nalhati temple (West Bengal) has stated that about two months thereafter he heard that Gitali Rai was thrown out from the house of the petitioner no. 1. 12. The defence witness namely, Rakhi Ghosh has stated that her marriage with the petitioner no. 1 was performed on 26.05.1999 and from the wedlock they have three children. She has asserted that she is staying with her husband who has a betel shop where the complainant used to visit. She has denied that her husband has married the complainant. 13. On the above evidence, it cannot be held that the complainant is the legally-married wife of the accused-Mohan Ghosh. There is no evidence on record that the alleged marriage of the complainant with the petitioner no. 1 was accepted by the family members of the petitioner no. 1 and the complainant was treated as wife of the petitioner no. 1 by the family members of the accused-husband and the society. No document reflecting the complainant as wife of the petitioner no. 1 has been led in evidence. The reason assigned by the trial Magistrate that the marriage of the accused-Mohan Ghosh with the complainant-Gitali Rai was performed without disclosing the first marriage and therefore the second marriage is a valid one, is such an assumption in law which cannot be countenance in law. This error in the judgment in T.R. Case No. 419 of 2012 has been ignored by the appellate court and for this reason alone the judgment dated 18.10.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2012 has been rendered unsustainable. 14. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the judgment dated 18.10.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2012 is set-aside. 14. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the judgment dated 18.10.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2012 is set-aside. Consequently the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 12.09.2012 passed in G.R. Case No. 268 of 2007 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 419 of 2012 stand quashed. The petitioners stand discharged from liability of their bail bonds. 15. In the result, Cr. Revision No. 27 of 2013 stands allowed. 16. Let a copy of the order be sent to the court concerned through “Fax” at the cost of the petitioners. 17. Let the lower court records be sent to the court below forthwith.