RAM DIGAMBAR GIRI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and conviction passed in Sessions Trial No.134 of 1999 by learned IInd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dtd. 14/3/2002 thereby convicting all the accused persons of committing offence punishable under Ss. 306 and 498-A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At this stage itself, it will not be out of place to mention that during the pendency of the Appeal, appellant Nos.1 and 3 expired and therefore by order dtd. 26/3/2019, this Court abated the Appeal against them. Under such circumstance the present Appeal is in respect of conviction awarded to appellant No.2 only. Appellant No.2 Saraswatibai W/o Digamber Giri has been convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 306 and 498-A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant No.2 has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. She has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution story, in short, is that original accused No.1 - Ram Digamber Giri got married to Surekha, who was the sister of informant Sonibuwa Babubuwa Bharati on 8/5/1997. The informant had four sisters and his father expired about ten years prior to the First Information Report. The marriage was performed as per the rites and it is stated that dowry of Rs.5,000.00 was given. At that time it was also decided that informant would also give gold ring, cot and mattress, but the same was remained to be given. Surekha had come to her parental home at Sindagi twice after the marriage and at that time she told the brother and mother that her husband, motherin-law and sister-in-law were insisting that she should bring the gold ring, cot and mattress and on that count she was being harassed mentally and physically. The mother and brother told her that since they are poor, they would fulfill the demand at the time of Diwali. Informant gone to fetch Surekha for the festival of Panchami but she was not allowed to go by the accused persons and it was told by the accused that unless the articles are given, Surekha will not be allowed to go along with the informant. On the next day, informant's uncle went to the matrimonial home of Surekha and made inquiry as to why Surekha has not been sent for the festival of Panchami and then he tried to convince that since their financial condition is poor, they would fulfill the demand at the time of Diwali. Thereafter Surekha was allowed to go along with uncle. After the festival, Surekha was left to her matrimonial home and then she was cohabiting with her husband. Message was received by the informant on 25/9/1997 that Surekha was missing. Search was undertaken and on the next day her dead body was found in a well in the said village where her matrimonial home was, i.e. Chatori and the First Information Report came to be lodged on the same day i.e. 26/9/1997.

(3.) After the First Information Report was lodged, investigation was undertaken. Inquest panchnama was executed as well as the spot panchnama. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem report was collected. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after the completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.