JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J. —

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1991 dated 09.03.2001. The appellant (original accused no. 1) and his parents (original accused nos. 2 and 3) were alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 498A, 306 and 109 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed convicted the appellant under section 498A IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default whereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also convicted under section 306 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Original accused nos. 2 and 3 were, however, acquitted by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed.

2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:

The appellant was married to the deceased Lata on 9.11.1987. The deceased was a highly qualified woman. She had obtained distinction in Masters of Science (M.Sc.). She secured second position in the Marathwada University in the Diploma in Business Management. She had also passed Diploma in Higher Education. She was doing Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) at the time of commission of the offence. She was serving as a Lecturer in Balbhim College at Beed.

3. The deceased Lata after marriage resided with the appellant. The appellant was living in a joint family with his parents. It was not a happy marriage from its very inception. There was constant taunting leading to mental cruelty to the deceased by the appellant and his parents.

4. The deceased visited her parents at Pandharpur in January 1988. She disclosed to her parents that she was constantly subjected to humiliation. The deceased again visited her parents in May 1988. She again disclosed to her parents that the appellant and his parents used to subject her to extreme mental cruelty and torture. She complained that the appellant asked her not to spend her salary, otherwise he would divorce her.

5. She also disclosed to her parents that the appellant used to tell her that a number of beautiful girls were after him. She also complained that the appellant and her father-in-law used to demand the salary from her and on refusal, both of them used to frequently ask her to leave the house. She further told her parents that her mother-in-law dispensed with the services of maid servants and compelled her to do all that domestic work.

6. She again visited at Pandharpur on third occasion for the purpose of delivery in July 1988. She was there from July 1988 to October 1988. She delivered a baby boy. The appellant and the deceased took a residential quarter on rent and stayed there for three weeks. However, they vacated the rental premises and started residing separately on the first floor of the ancestral house. The deceased was brought back to the ancestral house against her wishes.

7. It is an admitted position that the appellant was a junior lawyer and not settled in practice. He used to constantly demand money from the deceased. The appellant used to give her threats of divorcing her even in case of slight delay in withdrawing money from the bank to be given to the appellant. According to the statements of Vidhya P.W.7 and Vasant P.W.8, sister and father of the deceased respectively, and Exh. 46, it is abundantly clear that the appellant constantly used to give threats of divorce. This led to extreme mental torture to the deceased.

8. There was a family function Jawal ceremony (first head-shaving ceremony of child) in August 1989 at the house of the appellant. All guests including the parents and sisters of the deceased were invited for the ceremony. The parents and sisters of the deceased noticed ill treatment mete