SUNIL AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellants -original accused, who are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498 -A r/w 34, 302 r/w 34 of I.P. Code.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case, are as under: - -

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, so far alleged demand of Rs. 1,00,000/ - is concerned, there are vague allegations. There are no specific averments regarding illtreatment on the part of any particular accused and evidence is also lacking on that line. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are residing at different places. Accused No. 2 was residing at Parbhani at the relevant time for education purpose. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are residing at different places, whereas accused No. 5, who is married daughter was residing at the relevant time in her matrimonial house at Chimangaon. It is submitted that, there are no definite findings recorded by the trial Court that, there was harassment to Kanopatra (deceased) by the accused. The trial Court has not properly considered the dying declarations at Exhibit - 65 and Exhibit - 80. There are material improvement in the subsequent dying declaration, and therefore, benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellants. There are omissions in respect of visit of Kanopatra (deceased) at the time of her first Diwali to the house of her parents. The investigation is totally doubtful on the ground in respect of admission or referral of patient from government hospital Gangakhed to 'Adhar' Hospital Nanded. It is submitted that, in dying declaration recorded by PW -11 PSI Phule Exhibit -64, Kanopatra (deceased) has categorically stated that, her father -in -law had been to Pandharpur for pilgrimage, whereas in dying declaration at Exhibit - 80 recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate PW -13, she improves statement stating some overt act by father -in -law. It is therefore, stated that, in absence of the father -in -law, accusation of overt act is only with a view to rope total family in the offence.