SUMAN PRAHLAD GHODKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1993 is preferred by accused No. 3 Suman w/o Pralhad Ghodke challenging her conviction for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of the Indian Penal code and sentences thereunder passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, khamgaon in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1991 on 28-6-1993 whereas the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 1993 challenging the acquittal of accused nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. However, the appeal is admitted against the acquittal of accused No. 1 Vijay s/o Pralhad Ghodke only.

(2.) Pw 1 Shrirang s/o Yashwant Raut and PW 2 Sau. Vimal w/o Shrirang raut resident of Bhusawal had two daughters and a son. PW 3 Sau. Nirmala w/o subhash Madne is their elder daughter and Anita was their younger daughter. Anita was married to accused No. 1 Vijay s/o Pralhad Ghodke R/o Khamgaon on 14-2-1990. After their marriage, Anita went to cohabit with her husband at khamgaon. Accused No. 3 Suman is the mother-in-law, accused No. 4 Pralhad s/o Rangnath Ghodke is the father-in-law and accused No. 2 Raju s/o Pralhad ghodke and accused No. 5 Pappu s/o Pralhad Ghodke are the brothers-in-law of anita. All of them were residing jointly.

(3.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during Diwali of 1990 Anita went to her parental house at Bhusawal and stayed there for about 4-5 days. During her stay Anita told her parents that her husband (accused No. 1 Vijay) was demanding Rs. 10,000/- and her mother-in-law (accused No. 3 Suman) was demanding gold ring. The parents of Anita expressed their inability to satisfy the demand.