Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.

1. Both the appeals are arising out of the same Judgment and Order dated 18th November, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2002. Hence, both the appeals are disposed of by this common Judgment. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1455 of 2011 i.e. accused Nos. 1 and 4 are convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each i.d. to suffer S.I. for 3 months. They are further convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each i.d. to suffer S.I. for 6 months.

2. The appeal of the appellant No. 1 in Criminal No. 56 of 2012 i.e. accused No. 2 stands abated. The appellant No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2012 i.e. accused No. 2 is convicted under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer S.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. to suffer S.I. for one month. The accused No. 3 is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer S.I. for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- i.d. to suffer S.I. for one month.

3. Being aggrieved by this Judgment and Order, the accused have filed these appeals.

4. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals are as follows:

Sarita @ Pinku was married to original accused No. 1 on 23rd March, 2000. The original accused No. 4 is the sister of original accused No. 1. The accused No. 1 was serving in S.R.P. at Mumbai. Five days after the marriage the accused No. 1 joined his duty at Mumbai. However, his wife Sarita was residing in the matrimonial home alongwith her parents in-law and sister-in-law at village Ingrul, Taluka Shirala. It is alleged that the accused had insisted upon Sarita to bring cash amount from her parents for purchasing landed property. They coerced her for the same and she was ill-treated on the said count. It is further alleged that she was threatened that upon failure to fulfill their demand her husband i.e. Vasant would perform second marriage. Sarita had allegedly disclosed about the ill treatments meted out to her to her brother Vikas and other family members. The parents and relatives of Sarita had given an understanding to the accused persons. Sarita was taken to Mumbai by her husband after 8 months of marriage. They resided at Mumbai for about 5 to 6 months and then they returned to village Ingrul. Thereafter, accused Vasant left for Mumbai alone. He used to visit village Ingrul intermittently. It is alleged that for 10 days Sarita had resided with her parents and at that time she had complained against her in-laws. She had disclosed that her husband had threatened her that upon failure to fulfill the demand he would not take her to Mumbai.

5. On the occasion of Rakshabandhan father-in-law of Sarita had taken her to her maternal house and had allegedly reminded her of the demand. On 8th August, 2001 the accused Vasant took Sarita to village Ingrul and left for Mumbai. On 22nd August, 2001 Sarita had visited her maternal house on the occasion of Gauri Ganpati. She had reiterated her complaint. On 27th August, 2001 Vikas i.e. brother of Sarita received a message that father-in-law of Sarita was hospitalized and therefore, she should be sent immediately. On the same day at about 4 p.m. Vikas dropped Sarita at her marital home. It is alleged that the mother-in-law of Sarita had told Vikas that if they cannot arrange for payment, they should not take Sarita to her maternal house. It appears from the conversation that mother-in-law had told Vikas that it was assured that Sarita would return to matrimonial home within four days. However, there was delay and therefore, she would not take her in the house. Vikas had tendered apolo