SUNITA BALKRUSHNA KENDHALE Vs. BHIMRAO AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD respective Counsel.

(2.) THE applicant herein happens to be the daughter of the original complainant in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2000. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, thereby acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 306 and 304 -B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the present revision application is filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and the same has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice. The learned Sessions Judge has held that an expression that, 'the husband of Sangita would have received Rs. 1.00 Lakh towards dowry in the eventuality that he had got married to somebody else' by itself amounts to cruelty as contemplated under Section 498 -A of IPC. According to learned Counsel, the very fact that Sangita was taunted is sufficient to hold that the accused persons had meted Sangita with cruelty and ill -treatment. Learned Counsel for the accused - respondents submits that, the only evidence is of an expression that 'they would have received dowry' however, there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to show that the accused persons had demanded Rs. 1.00 Lakh towards dowry from the parents of Sangita. There is no evidence even to show that she was being ill -treated on account of non -fulfillment of the demand of the dowry by her parents. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that there is no demand at all by the accused for Rs. 1.00 Lakh or remaining amount of dowry and mere desire or expression of desire is not sufficient to constitute offence under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code.