SUSHMA SURESH NIGUDKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 14/09/2005 passed by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 403 of 1996. By the said Judgment and Order, the Trial Court was pleased to acquit accused No. 3 - Uday Manohar Dalvi for the offence punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, however, convicted accused No. 2 - Ankush Rajaram More, the appellant No. 2 herein, for the offences punishable under sections 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and accused No. 1 - Smt. Sushma Suresh Nigudkar, appellant No. 1 herein, for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court, however, acquitted accused No. 1 - Sushma Suresh Nigudkar for the offence punishable under section 304-B. The Sessions Court was pleased to sentence accused No. 1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs 3000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment of 15 days for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 2 - Ankush Rajaram More was sentenced to suffer rigorous 3 imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for 30 days for the offence punishable under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 4000/- and in default to suffer further imprisonment of 15 days for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief is as under:-

(3.) The appellant No. 2 - Ankush Rajaram More and Akshata Ankush More got married on 17/05/1995 and the marriage was solemnized at Mumbai. It is the prosecution case that during marriage ceremony, accused No. 2 demanded scooter and, subsequently, when he was promised that the scooter would be given to him, he performed the religious ceremony.