RAMESH ASARAM DHUPE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, on 21. 7. 1995, in Sessions case No. 28 of 1991, wherein, the appellants, while being acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, were convicted for offence under Section 306 and 498-A read with IPC, and the appellant no. 1 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 306 read with 34 i. P. C, and was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month, for offence under Section 498-A read with 34 I. P. C. So far as appellant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they were convicted for offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, simple imprisonment for two months, and were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, In default, simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The prosecution against the appellants arises out of complaint (Exh. 42) by Narayan Ganpat Warude (PW-1) , father of victim Shantabai, that was lodged by him on 17. 4. 1990 with Police Station, Tembhurni, on the basis of which offence was registered vide CR No. I-21/1990 under sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with 34 IPC. As the prosecution case goes, and as has been stated by complainant Narayan, the dead bodies of victim Shantabai and her minor daughter Manda were found in the well situated within the precincts of village Ambegaon, which is a place of residence of present appellants-original accused persons.

(3.) It Is an admitted position that victim Shantabai was married to appellant No. 1 Ramesh, about 5-6 years before her death. After marriage, she was residing with her husband-accused No. 1 and his parents - accused nos. 2 and 3 (Asaram and Kausabai). It was alleged by the prosecution that, though initially for some days after marriage, deceased Shantabai was treated well in her matrimonial home, later on she was subjected to cruelty by appellants because of non-fulfillment of their demand for rs. 2000/- and a wrist watch of RICCO company. The appellants were insisting Shantabai to bring the said amount and / or a wrist watch from her parents and as their demand was not satisfied, she was subjected to cruelty. It is further alleged that she was abused and assaulted. The complainant Narayan (PW-1) , though tried to convince accused persons and requested them not to ill-treat his daughter Shantabai, there was no change in the attitude of appellants and, therefore, Shantabai, while visiting her parents house on the eve of festivals, used to inform her parents and brother Ganesh (PW-3) about ill-treatment meted out to her, and even when the complainant Narayan and his son Ganesh visited matrimonial home of Shantabai, they came to know from Shantabai about ill-treatment given to her by the appellants. It is the case of complainant Narayan that about three years prior to the incident, when he had been to the house of accused persons, he learnt that Shantabai was subjected to harassment and, therefore, when he tried to persuade and convince the appellants, requesting them not to harass his daughter, the accused persons, in stead of repenting over what they have done, held threats and continued harassment to Shantabai. It was some eight days prior to the incident, when Ganesh (PW-3) , the brother of Shantabai, had been to village Dongaon for offering prayers to and seeking blessings of Goddess, there his sister Shantabai met him and told him that she was subjected to cruelty by all appellants and that they were asking for Rs. 2000/ -. Ganesh, in turn, informed the complainant Narayan about the same.