The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for positive material to support charges of cruelty and unlawful demands, and the court's emphasis on the lack of consistent and corroborative evidence to establish the prosecution's case.

The petitioners - accused 1 and 2, were charged and tried for offences punishable under sections 302, 306, 304-B, 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with three other accused in Session Case No.170 of 1995 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna. However, after considering the material placed on the record, the petitioners have been convicted only for an offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. All other accused have been acquitted of the said charges. Therefore, this revision application.

2. The prosecution proceeded on the facts that accused No.1 Sunil married with the deceased Sunita on 19-05-1994. The deceased was treated well by her in-laws which include accused no.2 - father-in-law, accused No.3Manubai, mother-in-law, accused No.4 Balia, brother of the husband, and accused No.5 Anil @ Shrikrishan, brother of the husband, accused No.1 at Jalna. Initially all were residing at Tebhurni, Taluka and District Jalna. However, subsequently they settled at Jalna. As alleged by the complainant - PW-l Kashiram, all the family members started harassing the deceased after three months of the initial days of her marriage. The harassments were only' to the extent of less dowry, not providing food, beating, taunting and insisting for bringing 5000 rupees from the parents. The complainant referred to various other instances as to how the deceased informed about the ill-treatment and harassment to them and even also to some of the relatives. The reference was also made about some altercations between the two families. The basic complaint, on the above background, on 18-181995 the deceased expired. The complainant visited Tembhurni along with five other persons and found the dead body of the deceased at the matrimonial house. On enquiry it was informed that she died on 18-8-1995 at 3.00 p.m. Taking this as a foundation the complainant lodged the First Information Report (FIR) on 19-8-1995 at 11.45 p.m. in the Police Station Tembhurni. Based on the same, the crime was registered under sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC by PW-5 Uttamgiri.

3. The investigating agency proceeded and the accused were charge-sheeted. During the trial the Sessions Court framed charge under sections 498-A, 306, 304-B and 302 read with section 34 of the IPC. All the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of total denial and further that the deceased was suffering from the continuous illness since beginning and; was on treatment from time to time; she had less haemoglobin in the blood. Her health was deteriorating day to day. On the date of the incident she was taken to the hospital at Jalna for the treatment. While getting down from ST Bus, the deceased felled on the ground and died all of a sudden. The death was neither homicidal nor suicidal but her death was natural.

4. The prosecution examined five witnesses. PW -1 Kashiram - complainant is the father of the deceased. PW-2 is Dr. Subhash, who conducted autopsy on the dead body. PW3 - Kamalbai is the mother of the deceased. PW4 - Pandurang is the uncle of the deceased while PW-5 Uttamgiri is the Investigating Officer (10).

5. The various letters and other necessary documents were placed on record. The Additional Sessions Judge after considering the material placed on record held that the prosecution proved that accused No.1 and accused No.2 subjected the deceased to cruelty in furtherance of their common intention on or before 18-8-1995, in order to meet the unlawful demand of 5000 rupees. The charges of abetment to commit suicide by putting her in consistent harassment and torture and/or ill-treatment and/or dowry death were negatived. The charge of murder of the deceased was also negative. The Sessions Judge thereby held accused 1 and 2 (hu