BALAJI Vs. RAJANNA NARSING DUDLAWAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for respondent No. 5 - State. None present for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, though served. Aggrieved by recording acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 from the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Biloli, Dist. Nanded in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1996, present Revision Application is filed by the original complainant.

(2.) Present revision applicant is father of the deceased. According to him, the deceased - Laxmibai had married to respondent No. 3 - Narsing about two years prior to her death. Laxmibai died on 9th October, 1995 due to consumption of poison. In the circumstances, the complaint was filed on the same day by present applicant i.e. PW 2 - Balaji @ Balu. In the complaint, he reported that deceased - Laxmibai was treated well by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their joint family for a period of 46 months. However, thereafter, she returned to his home and complained that the respondents used to make demands of luxury items like fan, cot, mattress, wrist watch, tape recorder etc. At that time, the complainant PW 2 - Balaji gave understanding that he was poor and was not able to even repay the amount which was taken by him from others as a loan for marriage of the deceased. In the circumstances, he sent the deceased to her matrimonial home. However, thereafter, against the ill-treatment was continued. Therefore, PW 2 - Balaji went to the house of the respondents, gave understanding to them and returned back.

(3.) Before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in all, eight witnesses were examined. Out of them, PW 2 Balaji, father of deceased and PW 4 Shivaji, brother of deceased are the material witnesses. PW 2 - Balaji did not depose before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge regarding any specific articles which were demanded by the respondents. He merely deposed that the respondents were demanding articles and were ill treating the deceased on that count. Further, he deposed that respondent No. 1 - father-in-law of the deceased started maltreating her and made demands for illicit relations.