CHANNAPPA KALLAPPA HIPARGI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Appeal preferred by all the three appellants - original accused Nos. 1 to 3 challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.03.2005 passed by II Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 79 of 2003. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default RI for six months each. The appellants were also convicted under Section 316 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 200 each, in default RI for three months each. The appellants were further convicted under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay find of Rs. 200 each, in default RI for one month each. Learned Sessions Judge directed all theses sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as under:

(3.) Also according to the case of the prosecution, two years prior to the date of the incident, there was kidney stone operation of appellant - accused no. 1 and for that purpose, he had expended about Rs. 15000/- and admittedly, had taken loan to raise that amount. On this taking of loan, he had some discussion with the complainant PW 4 Bhimsha i.e the father of the victim. In order to repay the said loan, the appellants were insisting victim Saraswati to bring the said amount of Rs. 15000/- or at least bring Rs. 10000/- from her parents. On that count, victim Saraswati was being abused in filthy language and at times, the victim was also not served food. All this ill-treatment was narrated by the victim Saraswati to her father PW 4 Bhimsha and also to her uncle PW 5 Arjun. He was also informed that the threats were given to her by the appellants to bring money and if not, they would kill her. On said demand of money, there was a meeting held at the house of the appellants in which it was made known by the relatives of Saraswati to the appellants that the father of the victim was a poor person and cannot raise that funds. So also request was made to the appellants not to ill-treat Saraswati. After the said meeting, relatives of Saraswati left the house, however, still, there was no change in the circumstances.