1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the conviction and sentence, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 202 of 1999, by way of judgment and order, dated 22.1.2001, whereby appellant herein (original accused no.1) was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, but no separate sentence was awarded under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and set off was directed to be given to appellant (original accused no.1) herein, as he was in Jail from 18.8.1999 to 29.10.1999.

2. The factual matrix and shorn of details, which gave rise to the present appeal, are as follows:-

The appellant i.e. original accused no.1 Kacharu Bhausaheb Sonawane and deceased Surekha married with each other about four years back from the date of incident i.e. 17.8.1999 and the original accused no. 2 – Bhausaheb Dattatraya Sonawane and original accused no.3 – Hausabai Bhausaheb Sonawane are the parentsinlaw of deceased Surekha. The appellant and his parents i.e. original accused nos. 2 and 3 faced the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but only appellant herein was convicted and sentenced, as afore stated; whereas original accused nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted from the charges levelled against them by the judgment and order, dated 22.1.2001.

3. It is alleged that deceased Surekha was educated upto 10th standard and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial home and was residing with the accused persons at Akolner, Taluka and District Ahmednagar. She was treated well for initial period of one year, but thereafter whenever she used to come to her parental house, she used to complain that the accused persons used to make unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/to be brought by her from her parents and they used to assault her due to nonfulfillment of the said demand and even some times she was starved on the said count.

4. Complainant – Ravindra Murlidhar Deshmukh, resident of Arangaon, Taluka and District Ahmednagar is the brother of deceased Surekha and he has also another unmarried sister, namely Seema. Deceased Surekha used to make grievance about illtreatment and harassment to her at the hands of accused persons before her brother i.e. the complainant and he used to convince her. He brought her to parental house for delivery purpose and accordingly, deceased Surekha gave birth to a female child. However, on the insistence of her fatherinlaw, namely Bhausaheb, she was sent back to her matrimonial home very soon after delivery. It is also alleged that after lapse of about six months, complainant Ravindra went to the house of accused persons to meet deceased Surekha and at that time also Surekha complained before him that the accused persons used to demand amount of Rs. 50,000/from her and used to ill-treat her and used to assault her on account of said unlawful demand. Hence, the complainant again requested the accused persons not to ill-treat Surekha, but the accused persons stated that they would not ill-treat her if amount is paid to them, otherwise they would not allow her to reside in the house.

5. It is also the case of prosecution that on 17.8.1999, when the complainant Ravindra was at Daund, he received a telephonic message from PW3 Kashinath Deshmukh i.e. uncle of Surekha at about 11.30 a.m. conveying that Surekha informed him on telephone from Sonewadi that she was driven out of her house on account of demand of amount of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant came to his house at Arangaon at about 7.00 p.m., but he did not find Surekha there. Hence, he contacted PW4 Sangita Deshmukh i.e. distant sister of Surekha, who informed that Surekha left her house at about 11.00 a.m. on the same day. Hence, the complainant PW2 Ravindra contac