RAMHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal there is challenge to judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No.57 of 2000, dtd. 27/8/2002 for offence under Sec. 498-A read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

(2.) Yusuf Wadgaon Police Station registered crime bearing No.70/99, on report lodged by father PW-1, who reported that his daughter Suman was married to accused Ramhari one and half year prior to the incident. At the time of marriage Rs.17,000.00 was decided as dowry amount along with gold ornaments to be given to the accused. For one month his daughter was treated properly but thereafter accused started ill treating his daughter in the backdrop of demand of T.V. or cash of Rs.5,000.00 When his daughter came, she reported about beating, not providing food, driving her out of the house. After one month message was received that Suman died and so he approached police and lodged report Exhibit-15, on the basis of which crime was registered bearing no.70/99 for commission of offence under Ss. 498-A, 306, both read with Sec. 34 of IPC, against husband and in-laws. Accused were made to face trial before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai vide Sessions Case No.57 of 2000. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial court convicted accused nos.1 to 3 for offence under Sec. 498-A read with Sec. 34 of IPC, but acquitted all of them from charges under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 34 of IPC i.e. vide judgment dtd. 27/8/2002. Feeling aggrieved by the above conviction of offence under Sec. 498-A instant appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that there is false implication. There is no cogent, reliable evidence about demand or cruelty. According to him, vague allegations are made. He further pointed out that there is no independent evidence and only interesting witnesses like family members are examined. That, even they are not consistent or lending support to each other. Their testimonies are full of material omissions and contradictions. Thus, according to him, when essential ingredients of even Sec. 498-A of IPC were not available as like Sec. 306 of IPC, learned trial court ought not to have held appellants guilty. According to him, there is not only improper appreciation of evidence but also settled law has not been taken into account and, hence, he prays to set aside the said judgment by allowing the appeal.