The appellants-original accused have challenged the judgment and order dated 6.12.1991 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.66 of 1989. By the said judgment and order, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 498A r.w. Section 34 and 304-B r.w. Section 34 of IPC. For the offence under Section 498-A r.w. Section 34 of IPC, the appellants were sentenced to SI for one year and fine of Rs.500/ - each i/d SI for three months. For the offence under Section 304-B r.w. Section 34 of IPC, the appellants were sentenced to RI for seven years. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the appellants of the offence under Section 306 r.w. Section 34 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

2. The appellant no. 1 is the husband of deceased Neeta. Appellant no.2 is mother of appellant no. 1 and appellant no.3 is married sister of appellant no.1. At this stage, it may be stated here that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant no.2 expired and hence, this appeal abates as far as appellant no.2 is concerned. Thus, this appeal is being considered only in respect of appellant nos.1 and 3.

3. Prosecution case briefly stated is as under:

Deceased Neeta and the appellant no.1 were in love and as appellant no.1 did not belong to the same caste as that of deceased, their affair was opposed by the family of Neeta. Due to this, appellant no.1 and Neeta both ran away from home and got married. At the time of marriage, none of the relatives of Neeta were present. The marriage took place in the year 1985. After the marriage, Neeta started residing at Bagal Chawl, Ravivar Peth, Kolhapur along with the appellant No.1. It is the prosecution case that demands were made by the accused persons and as the demand made by the appellants was not met, Neeta was harassed by the accused persons. Hence, Neeta committed suicide by setting herself on fire.

PW 1 Mahendra who is brother of Neeta has stated that few months after her marriage, Neeta came to their house. At that time, she was weeping. On being asked as to why she was weeping, Neeta informed him that she was harassed and beaten on the ground that she should bring money from her parents. At that time, complainant paid Rs.500/- to Neeta and Neeta returned to her house with that amount. After few months again Neeta came to their house and her lips were swollen and there was bandage on her forehead. On being asked, Neeta informed that accused no.3 caught her hair and pushed her head on the wall. She told them that accused nos. 1 and 2 asked her to bring Rs.l,500/- as installment of autorickshaw which is to be paid to the bank and they had beaten her. The complainant gave Rs.700/- to Neeta and Neeta returned back to her matrimonial home with the said money. Two months after the delivery of her son Neeta came to their house and stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 were asking her to bring money from her parents as they had incurred medical expenses. Neeta's father gave Rs.300/- to Neeta. After some period of time, Neeta came to their house. She was weeping and she told them that her husband beat her on the ground that she should bring huge amount. She stated that she had been beaten by her husband. She also informed them that accused nos. 1 to 3 told her if she does not bring huge amount, her life would be in danger. At that time, complainant paid Rs.100/- to Neeta. Thereafter, Neeta committed suicide by setting herself on fire. After the post-mortem, PW 1 Mahendra lodged his FIR against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed.

4. Charge came to be framed against the accused persons under Sections 498-A, 304(B) and 306 r.w. Section 34 of IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence is of total denial and false implication. It is their specific case that