Abhay S. Waghwase JUDGMENT
Abhay S. Waghwase, J.
1. Judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga dated 15.01.2003, thereby convicting husband and in-laws (appellants) for offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 and recording guilt of husband accused no.1 alone for offence punishable under section 494 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), is hereby assailed by filing instant appeal.
Learned counsel for appellants submits that, during pendency of appeal appellant No.3 - Dattatraya Rangrao Pawar has expired. She placed on record death certificate issued by Government of Maharashtra, Health Department, which shows that, he died on 12.12.2016. Therefore, appeal as regards to appellant no.3 stands abated.
PROSECUTION STORY IN NUTSHELL IS AS UNDER
2. Kasar-Shirshi Police Station charge-sheeted accused on allegations that, accused husband and in-laws of Phulabai subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in the backdrop of demand of 2 tola gold and also for second marriage of accused husband during subsisting of first marriage with Phulabai. Because of the maltreatment, she end up her life by jumping in the river. Hence report was lodge by PW1 Tanaji brother, on the strength of which, crime was registered bearing No.164 of 2001 for offence punishable under sections 306, 498A, 494, 323, 504 read with section 34 of IPC.
After appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted accused for offence punishable under section 498A and 494 of IPC only.
Hence the appeal.
SUBMISSION
On behalf of Appellants :
3. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that, prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, there is no independent evidence and only interested witnesses are examined. That, testimonies of witnesses are full of inconsistencies, variances, material omissions and contradictions. It is pointed out that, specific instances and nature of ill treatment is not stated by any witness. There was no previous complaint anywhere. That, deceased spent maximum time at her parents house, and therefore, there is no question of any demand or maltreatment.
4. Learned counsel pointed out that, charge of 494 of IPC is also misplaced. That, there is no legally acceptable evidence about accused husband performing second marriage with accused No.6. That, there is no evidence about any marriage ceremony. Essential ingredients for attracting section 494 of IPC are not available on record and hence according to learned counsel, conviction is for the same is also unwarranted.
On behalf of State :-
5. Per contra, learned APP would submit that, in spite of cohabitation for 7 to 8 years, there was consistent ill treatment on account of demand of gold. Deceased Phulabai promptly reported about treatment meted out, to her family members. She was kept starved. There was physical as well as mental cruelty. Accused husband had candidly admitted in section 3........