JANARDHAN BAJIRAO SHINGARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original accused No. 1 Janardhan has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1993, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304B of I. P. C. and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for seven years and for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I. P. C. and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ -.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the accused No. 1 Janardhan was previously married and from his first wife he had five daughters including the accused No. 2 Sunita and accused No. 3 Praphulla. After death of his first wife, he entered into second marriage with Indubai about10 to 11 years prior to the incident of this case. Indubai was daughter of P.W.3 Manikrao and P.W.5 Rukhminibai, who are residents of village Jawalban, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. According to prosecution, at the time of marriage of Indubai her father had agreed to give six Grams gold ring, one gold locket, clothes and utensils as dowry to the accused No. 1. However, he could not give gold ring and locket for want of funds. After marriage, Indubai went to live with her husband at village Awasgaon. THE accused No. 1 had his house at Awasgaon and he had also farm house in his filed Survey No.17. Accused No. 1 was living with his daughters in the house in the village while his second wife Indubai was living in the farm house. She lived there for about2-3 months and then she went to her parents' place first time after the marriage and informed her parents that she was being harassed on account of gold ring and locket and that she was being beaten and not provided food. At that time, she lived with her parents for about1 or 1-1/2 years and thereafter accused No. 1 alongwith Bankat Shingare and Hanumant Shingare approached P.W.3 Manikrao and assured that he would not harass her in future. At that time, P.W.3 Manikrao gave 10 grams gold ring and new clothes to the accused No. 1. He also gave new clothes to Bankat Shingare and Hanumant Shingare and he sent his daughter Indubai alongwith the accused No. 1. This time she lived with accused No. 1 for about one month. However, due to beating and ill-treatment, she again returned to her parent's place and informed them that she was being harassed on account of demand of gold locket. She alleged that accused Nos. 2 and 3 used to harass her saying that she could not prepare breads. This time again she lived with her parents for about1 or 1-1/2 years. Again accused No. 1 went to the house of P.W.3 Manikrao alongwith Pandharinath Sakhare and assured good treatment in future and on this assurance, Indubai returned to her husband's house. About 8 to 15 days after that P.W.3 Manikrao got information that accused No. 1 again was harassing and beating his daughter and therefore, he went to the house of accused No. 1 and took back to his daughter Indubai to his house. After that on24-12-87 Indubai lodged F. I. R. against the accused No. 1 at Police Station Yusuf Wadgaon, on the basis of which, police filed charge-sheet Exh. 39 against the accused No. 1. However, during pendency of that criminal case in the Court, compromise took place and she returned to her husband's house and as a result of compromise, accused No. 1 was acquitted in that criminal case. After disposal of that matter she was again beaten and ill-treated and she returned to her parents' place. She reached her parents' place in the morning at about6. 00 a. m. and accused Nos. 1 and 2 followed her at about7. 00 a. m. with a request to come back. However, at that time, she was not willing to go back because of beating and ill-treatment to her. She told her father that she would maintain herself by doing labour work but would not return to the house of the accused No. 1. In view of this she did not go back. At that time P.W.3 Manikrao asked the accused No. 1 to come again after 15 days. However, he did not turn up. THEreafter, P.W.3 Manikrao sent Indubai to her husband's house alongwith his brother P.W.6 Pralhad, about15 days prior to her death.

(3.) Heard Mr. V. M. Maney, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. B. Varale, the learned A. P. P. for the State. The learned counsel for both sides have taken me through the oral and documentary evidence as well as the judgment of the trial court extensively.