STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHAIRAOPRASAD SHIONARAYAN SARAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Taking exception to the respondents' acquittal, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, of the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A and 304-B of the Penal Code, the State has appealed. The facts which led to the prosecution of the respondents are as under :

(2.) Victim Mamta, daughter of one P. S. I. Gupta, was married to respondent No. 6 Shamkumar on30th November, 1989. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are parents of Shamkumar and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are his siblings. It was alleged that Mamta was ill-treated by her in-laws. The ill-treatment was such that Mamta was driven to commit suicide on 05-07-1991. She sustained severe burn injuries and was admitted to hospital but succumbed to her injuries on14-07-1991. On a report by her father, offence was registered and investigation commenced.

(3.) We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri. Mirza, for State. With the help of Shri. Mirza, we have gone through the entire evidence on record in order to find out whether the learned trial Judge erred in concluding that the charges were not proved. There is absolutely no evidence about any demand of dowry being the cause of ill-treatment. There is only one sentence in the evidence of P. W.1 Shivkanti, mother of the victim that, Mamta's in-laws had said that, if respondent No. 6 had married some other girl dowry of Rs. 80,000/- would have been received. This statement is not corroborated by other two witnesses, P.W.2 Amita, sister of the victim and P.W.3 Vinay, victim's brother. It seems that customary gifts had been given to the victim and her in-laws from time to time. Even a day prior to the incident, according to P. W.1 Shivkanti, respondent No. 6 had come to her house and had taken new silver ornaments for Mamta. Shivkanti and two witnesses have, however, came out with very strange allegations that Mamta's father-in-law and brother-in-law, accused Nos. 1 and 5, had evil eye and accused No. 5 made very nasty and vulgar comments which were conveyed by victim Mamta to them. However, it is worthy to note that none of the witnesses said anything about complaint or mediation through third party in respect of the acts of cruelty. P. W.1 Shivkanti admits that though she knew that her daughter was in a trouble she sent back her daughter to the matrimonial home and could not assign any reason for so doing. It seems to us that except for normal wear and tear in the married life there might not be much substance in the allegations levelled by the three prosecution witnesses. Otherwise Mamta would not have been sent back to matrimonial home.