RAVINDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10th January, 1996 Vasant Mango Badgujar lodged First Information Report with Taluka Police Station, Dhule. On the basis of said F.I.R., Police Station Officer registered CR No. 14/1996 for the offences punishable under Sections. 498(A), 306, 304(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 against the applicants and one Narayan Revaji Badgujar.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, marriage of daughter of first informant, Jyoti @ Ratna was solemnized with Applicant No.1 in the year 1991, though in the First Information Report the date was given as 25/09/1989. According to the first informant Vasant an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid at the time of marriage. However after paying such amount, at the time of marriage, original accused No.3 Sumanbai, motherin- law refused to take the bride to her village and that time she demanded gold ring and one fan. That time, understanding was given by village Sarpanch Rumsingh, Police Patil Shivaji and one Ananda Namdeo Patil and only on their assurance, bride was taken to her in laws house. The First Information Report further proceeds that since the first informant could not gave gold ring and fan, it resulted into the ill-treatment to Jyoti at the hands of the applicants and, therefore, in lieu of these items viz. gold ring and fan, an amount of Rs.2800/- were paid. However, again there was demand of money at the time of Mulpati [which is a ceremony of sending daughter to her in-laws house for the first time] and that time, the first informant paid Rs.1700/-. According to the F.I.R. about 1 1/2 years ago he took his daughter and son-in-law applicant No.1 to Surat and employed him at one industry and also took room on rent by depositing Rs.2000/-. Subsequently, motherin- law, sister-in-law of Jyoti i.e. present applicant Nos. 2 and 3 came at Surat. That time, there was an attempt to kill Jyoti. Incident was witnessed by Prakash Ananda Lohar, who is prosecution witness No.8. However, that time she was saved by his son PW No.4 Gajanan and PW No. 8 Prakash Lohar. Thereafter, applicant left Surat and Jyoti was residing alognwith her brother Gajanan. When this incident was brought to the notice of the first informant, he brought Jyoti from Surat and since then she was residing with the first informant. Since she was residing with her parents house, first informant alongwith Jyoti had been to Mr. S.M. Sathe, Advocate for filing claim for maintenance for Jyoti. However, the petition could not filed immediately. Thereafter, first informant received letter from Vinayak Badgujar by which understanding was given to Narayan, original accused No.2 and thereafter Jyoti started residing with her in-laws. However, within a short period of 4 to 5 days, information was received that Jyoti is dead due to consumption of poison.

(3.) After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the applicants alongwith co-accused Narayan Badgujar were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections. 498(A), 306, 304(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in Sessions Case No. 98 Of 1996. After full dressed trial, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Dhule vide his Judgment and Order dated 15th January, 1999 acquitted original accused No.2 Narayan. The learned trial court was pleased to acquit present applicants from the charge of offence punishable under Sections. 306, 304(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant Nos. 1 and 3 were also acquitted from the charge of offences punishable under Sections. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Asstt.Sessions Judge, Dhule however held the applicants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered that applicant No.1 Ravindra and applicant No.2 Sumanbai to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for three months. In so far as applicant No.3 Anita i.e. original accused No.4 is concerned, she was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.