NARENDRA SAHEBRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 20/12/2001 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1994 recording guilt of appellants for offence punishable under Ss. 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

(2.) Deceased Chandanbai was married to accused-appellant Narendra on 16/5/1993. After marriage, she went to reside with appellant no.1 husband and in-laws including appellant nos. 2 and 3 i.e. her brother-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. After marriage, everything was smooth for initial period. However, after five weeks, when deceased Chandanbai visited her parents house, she reported that all accused are demanding Rs.10,000.00 for purchasing agricultural land and they wanted the amount to be brought from her father. That, there was threat that if she fails to bring the amount, then she would be divorced and second marriage of husband Narendra would be performed. Accused persons were taunting deceased for not cooking properly and not working properly. They all were always insulting her. Mother-in-law instigated husband saying that parents of Chandanbai insulted her, as a result of which husband beat deceased by means of stick. On 21/4/1994, a letter from deceased was received to PW4 brother regarding demand of new clothes to her father-in-law. Therefore new clothes were also arranged. However, on 25/4/1994, message was received about Chandanbai to be serious. When brother and other relatives reached village Manjre, they learnt that deceased Chandanbai had suffered burns and therefore complaint Exhibit 28 was lodged by brother, on the basis of which crime was registered by Nandurbar Police Station. PW6 carried out investigation and filed charge sheet for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 306, 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On appreciation of evidence adduced by prosecution, learned trial Judge held accused guilty for offence punishable under Ss. 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment and to pay fine respectively. Said judgment dtd. 20/12/2001 is now assailed before this court. SUBMISSIONS

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned trial Judge has already acquitted accused persons from charge under Sec. 304-B IPC as well as under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, learned trial Judge ought not to have held accused guilty of offence under Sec. 498-A of IPC. It is emphasized that there is no independent, reliable evidence in support of charge of cruelty. That, even accepting the case of prosecution witnesses, there was mere taunting and there was no mental or physical harassment so as to attract offence of 498-A IPC. He submitted that there was no previous complaint at any point of time but merely on losing sister, brother had set law into motion out of annoyance.