PRADEEP MANOHAR TAJNE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.75/2006, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants (hereinafter referred to as ' accused ) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A r/w 34 and 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and were directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The accused were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and were directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Nirmalabai w/o Maroti Pade (PW-3) was the resident of village Khomona, District-Chandrapur. Deceased Pushpa was her daughter. Pushpa was married with accused No.1 Pradip on 29.04.2005. After the marriage, she started cohabiting with her husband-accused No.1 and the in-laws-accused Nos.2 and 3.

(3.) It is the case of the prosecution that after marriage, for about two to three festive occasions, PW-3 Nirmalabai went to the matrimonial house of Pushpa at Wadgaon in order to bring her to their parental house. However, accused No.1 did not allow to take Pushpa with her and used to say that she should give dowry to him, if at all, she desires to take Pushpa to her parental home. On the occasion of Mahashivratri, when PW-3 visited the house of matrimonial house of her daughter, she was complaining that her husband used to ill-treat her physically as well as mentally on the issue of demand of dowry from her parents and accused No.1 used to say that he was not presented with any dowry at the time of marriage.