SANJAY SHREERAM KOLAPKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 19th September, 1990, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.282 of 1989, convicting each of the appellants-accused for the offences punishable under sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and each of them have been sentenced to suffer S.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,001/- in default S.I. for 3 months for the offence of taking dowry and further each of them have been sentenced to suffer S.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default S.I. for 2 months. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that, the marriage between appellant- accused No.1 and deceased Anjali took place on 28.5.1986 at Otur. It is the prosecution case that the said marriage was being settled by appellant-accused No.3 Ambadas who is the real brother of appellant No.2. It is further the case of the prosecution that before solemnizing the said marriage, a meeting was convened in the house of P.W.5 Laxman at Otur for settlement of the marriage when appellants and other members of both sides were present. In the said meeting, initially, appellant No.3 demanded dowry of Rs.30,000/- and one tola gold ring. However, after some discussion, it was settled that dowry of cash amount of Rs.15,001/- and one tola gold ring were to be given in the marriage. The said settlement was reduced in writing which was signed by P.W.5 and appellant No.3 and others. It is alleged that as per the settlement, the amount of Rs.15001/- and one tola gold ring were given as dowry in the marriage. After the marriage, deceased Anjali was staying with the appellant No.1 at Junnar. It is alleged that every Saturday and Sunday, appellant-accused No.2 was coming to the house of appellant No.1. It is further alleged that all the appellants were subjecting deceased Anjali to harassment. They were insisting deceased Anjali to ask her father to advance money. It is further alleged that whenever she visits her parents house, she used to narrate the aforesaid facts to her parents.

(3.) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune framed charges against the appellants-accused for the offences punishable under sections 306 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 498A r/w section 34 I.P.C. and also under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellants-accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and came to be tried. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses and hearing arguments on either side, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the appellants-accused not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 306 r/w 34 and under section 498A r/w sec.34 I.P.C. and acquitted them of the said charges. However, learned Judge found the appellants-accused guilty for offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them to suffer S.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.15001/- in default to suffer S.I. for three months for taking dowry and further, they have been sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default, to suffer S.I. for two months for offence of demanding dowry. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence this appeal.