MADHUKAR PANDITRAO KENDRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latur, in Sessions Case No.8 of 1997, dated 23rd September, 1997, convicting the appellant under Section 498-A and under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced the appellant further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) In the year 1992, the appellant married Surekha, the daughter of the complainant. Until 25th August, 1996, the appellant allegedly treated Surekha with cruelty for getting his unlawful demands for remaining amount of dowry and for additional amount. Surekha was found dead in the appellant's house. On one hand, the prosecution alleged that the appellant committed murder of Surekha. In the alternative, it is said that the appellant caused dowry death of Surekha.

(3.) The prosecution case further alleges that at the time of settlement of the marriage, it was agreed that Surekha's father, prosecution witness No.3 Shivaji should pay Rs.65,000/- to the appellant besides other ornaments etc. Shivaji could pay only Rs.55,000/- at that time and sought time for effecting payment of the remaining amount. After IV2 year, the appellant started demanding remaining amount of dowry through Surekha. She made complaint about ill treatment, beating etc. at the hands of the appellant to her parents and sibling. Soon thereafter, the appellant started demanding Rs.50,000/- more. He said, he needed that amount to settle a criminal case, which was filed against him. [The appellant was working as police constable, and in certain event, due to the constable's attack a person died, and that, the appellant and other police constables were accused of committing the offence of homicide.] During Diwali festival of 1995, Surekha and appellant visited the house of complainant Shivaji. On that occasion, Surekha requested her parents to give money to the accused and that she was being subjected to cruelty, harassment and beating due to the non-fulfillment of his demand. Even the appellant made such demand on that occasion and refused to take meals. The complainant, however, could not arrange funds. In the meantime, the prosecution witness No.5 Vishwanath, at the request of the complainant, visited the appellant, in order to persuade him not to beat and harass Surekha. The appellant did not pay any heed to the advice. The appellant even demanded the amount of remaining dowry to Vishwanath. On 23rd August, 1996, the appellant visited the complainant's house and demanded money once again. When the complainant could not fulfill the demand, the appellant got angry and tried to assault the complainant Shivaji with a knife. The witnesses foiled this attack and pacified the appellant. However, the appellant again threatened the complainant that if the amount would not be paid, the complainant would hear news about murder of his daughter within few days. Within two days thereafter, on 25th August, 1996, in the morning, the complainant Shivaji received information about death of his daughter Surekha. He visited the appellant's house and found Surekha dead. On the same day, complainant Shivaji approached the police of Wadhona (Bk) Police Station and gave his report in writing. The police registered offence and the investigation began. Ultimately, the appellant was brought before the learned Sessions Judge, who charged him for having committed offences punishable under Section 302, in the alternative under Section 304-B and under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge then recorded evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, and, in defence, the appellant recorded depositions of two defence witnesses.