1. Heard rival submissions at length on this appeal preferred by original accused No.1 challenging the judgment and order dated 31.1.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 172 of 1996.

2. Originally four accused, including the present appellant-accused No. 1, were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

3. By the impugned judgment and order, original Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were acquitted of all the charges. Present appellant Accused No.1 was also acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. However, he is convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default of fine to undergo imprisonment for one month.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant Accused No.1 preferred the present appeal. During the pendency of the present appeal, he was released on bail. However, when the matter was taken for final hearing before this Bench, he did not remain present, so also his Advocate was not present. Hence, sometime in January, 2011, initially bailable warrant was issued against the appellant and subsequently non-bailable warrant was issued in February, 2011 and thereafter present appellant was taken in custody and presently he is in jail. As such he had preferred Criminal Application No. 464 of 2011 for bail. However, it was thought fit under the circumstances of the case, considering the pendency of the appeal since the year 1997, to decide the appeal itself on merits instead of deciding the application for bail. Hence, the present order.

5. Certain factual position, as emerged out from the material available before the learned Sessions Court, is required to be narrated in order to have the proper perspective of the matter and in order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant-accused No.1. Such position is as under:-

(i) All the four accused were charged for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. for treating the deceased Chandrakala wife of the appellant with cruelty and subjected her to such harassment of such a nature and to such an extent and was likely to drive her to commit suicide.

(ii) Inspite of the charge for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., charge under section 306 of I.P.C. was not established against all the accused.

(iii) Charge of 498A of I.P.C. was also not established against accused Nos. 2 to 4 who are the relatives of accused No.1. Only charge established against the appellant-accused is punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C.

(iv) Total eight prosecution witnesses were examined during the trial and out of them material witnesses are PW No. 1, father of the deceased PW No.6, mother of the deceased and one Rajmal – PW No.4, the husband of one Smt. Ujawala, mistress of the present appellant-accused No.1. P.W.No.2 is the Medical Officer whose evidence is on the aspect of performing post-postmortem report of 11th November, 1995 on the dead body of the victim Smt Chandrakala wife of present appellant.

(v) P.W.No.7 is brother in law of Accused No.1. However, he did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. P.W.No.3 is one Smt Kalpana, who is a tenant of the premises at Dhule who deposed about the joint stay of the appellant along with his mistress Ujawala staying in a house along with brother of Ujawala and one son each of the appellant and said Smt Ujawala. P.w.No.5 is maternal uncle of deceawsed Chandrakala who deposed as to – at one occasion the appellant demaning Rs.500/-from him for repair of the motor jeep purchased by the appellant. The last prosecution witness No.8 is the Investigating Officer.

6. This Court has gone through the substantive evidence of above prosecu