THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SANJAY SHESHRAO SURYAWANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents / accused passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.312 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B r.w. 34 of IPC, the appellant State has preferred this appeal; So also, the original complaint has also preferred Criminal revision application No.336/1996 challenging the judgment and order of acquittal.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:

(3.) Further case of prosecution is that good treatment was given to Latabai for six months after the nuptial. Accused Sanjay was not in service at that time. Accused Sanjay came to the complainant P.W.1 Sanjay Borude at Paithan and informed that he requires Rs.500/ for going to interview at Deoolgaon Raja. Complainant gave Rs.500/ in the month of June, 1993. Accused No.1 Sanjay did not get the service. In the month of October, 1993, Lata and accused Sanjay came at Paithan. Accused Sanjay demanded gold ring of 3 gms. The father of Lata gave him gold ring. After four days, complainant received letter of accused No.1 Sanjay, in which, he informed that he disposed of that gold ring and amount was invested in Peerless company in the name of the mother of Lata and again demanded Rs.2000/. All accused started giving illtreatment to Lata and used to tell that she was not doing the work properly. Accused Sanjay and his mother used to assault her and used to tell that she was not knowing field work. Accused Vijay also used to quarrel with her. There was harassment to Latabai in the house of accused. Thereafter, after 15 days accused Sanjay again came to Paithan and mother of Lata gave him Rs.1000/. Accused Sanjay spent all the amount. The mother of complainant and Lata gave in all Rs.5000/ to accused Sanjay. Accused Sanjay did not invest amount in the name of anybody in Peerless company.