1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order dated 7-12-2000, rendered by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1998.

2. It appears that the accused nos.1 to 5 faced the trial under Sessions Case No. 16 of 1998 for the charges leveled against them under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and the appellant herein i.e. original accused no.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, and was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, whereas accused nos.2 to 5 were also acquitted for the aforesaid offences and, therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence in respect of appellant herein i.e. original accused no.1, present appeal is preferred.

3. The facts and events leading to the present appeal are as follows :

(i) Accused no.1 i.e. appellant herein was married with the victim, namely, Surekha, about two years prior to her death and the accused nos.2 to 5 are relatives of accused no.1. Accused no. 2Sheshrao is her brother-in-law and accused no.3 Mhasuji is her father-in-law and accused no.4 Sow. Godabai is her mother-inlaw, whereas accused no.5 Sau. Vandanabai is wife of accused no.2. It is alleged that after the marriage, deceased Surekha was treated well initially for a period of six months, but thereafter accused persons started to harass and illtreat her over demand of Rs. 25,000/-for the purchase of agricultural land. It is also alleged that when Surekha came to her parental house at the time of last Diwali, she disclosed about the unlawful demand of Rs. 25,000/- and illtreatment due to non-compliance thereof by the accused. But she was pacified and was sent back to her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that Laxman (PW 2), father of Surekha i.e. complainant, had gone to the matrimonial home of Surekha to bring her for Nagpanchami festival. However, accused refused to send her and, therefore, he alone returned back. After some time, Surekha came to his house. At that time also, she disclosed that accused were demanding Rs. 25,000/- and threatened her that if the said amount was not brought, she should not return back. However, at that time, cousin brother of complainant, namely, Rameshwar, had expired and, therefore, she stayed back at parental house for some time. Thereafter, she was sent back to her matrimonial home. However, Surekha returned back on the same day and on inquiry, she disclosed that her husband i.e. accused no.1 had assaulted her with hunter as she had not brought the demanded amount.

(ii) It is also case of the prosecution that on the next day, the complainant, namely, Laxman (PW 2) went to Grampanchayat office and called Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Sakharam Dhongade and narrated them about illtreatment sustained by his daughter Surekha at the hands of accused, in presence of accused nos.1 and 2 who were present there. Hence, both the said persons i.e. Nandu Kale (PW 5) and Sakharam Dhongade advised the accused, not to illtreat Surekha. Moreover, the complainant assured that he would pay the amount to the accused after sale of sugarcane crop. Thereafter, the accused took Surekha to