PRALHAD Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 76/1995. The appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A read with Section 34 and Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was wife of appellant No. 1. She was married to appellant No. 1 on 19 -5 -1995 and died within three months of her marriage. The allegations against the appellants before the trial Court were that the appellants had been demanding Rs. 50,000/ - from the deceased and her parents to secure a job for appellant No. 1. The parents of deceased could not pay the amount and therefore, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. First Information Report was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by father of the deceased. Dead body was sent for post -mortem examination. The Medical Officer reported that the deceased had died due to chemical poisoning. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed in the Court.

(2.) THE prosecution had examined in all four witnesses to establish the charges against the appellants. P.W. 1 -Pandurang and P.W. 2 -Parvatibai were parents of the deceased, P.W. 3 -Subhash was neighbour of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, P.W. 4 -Awdhesh Tripathi was the Investigating Officer. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, both have stated that they were told by the deceased that the appellants had been demanding Rs. 50,000/ -. P.W. 1 had refused to pay. It is further stated that mother -in -law of deceased had once visited house of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 to demand Rs. 50,000/ -. To corroborate this evidence, the prosecution has examined P.W. 3. P.W. 3 has stated that there was a commotion at the house of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and when he visited the house, he was told by P.W. 2 that mother -in -law of the deceased was demanding Rs. 50,000/ -. The evidence of P.W. 3 is hearsay.

(3.) THE cause of death is not disputed, evidence of witnesses has failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The appellant No. 3 is reported dead. In view of above discussion, in my opinion, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellants by the trial Court. Hence, I pass the following order.