JUDGMENT :

S.B. Shukre, J.

1. This is an appeal, which challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 24.03.2006 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 99/2005 by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are as under:

(i) Accused No. 1 was the husband of deceased Rashmi and the remaining accused were in-laws of deceased Rashmi. Their marriage was solemnized before the Registrar, Akola on 29.07.2003. Prior to the marriage, there was an agreement reached between the side of the groom and the side of the bride regarding the arrangements to be made for the marriage and presentation of certain gifts. However, on the date agreed for solemnization of the marriage, the groom's party did not turn up and, therefore, the marriage could not be performed. Later on, there was some intervention on the part of some persons, which resulted into the side of the bridegroom agreeing to perform marriage of accused No. 1 with the deceased.

(ii) At the time of marriage, it is alleged, the father of the deceased presented gold bangles, mangalsutra, tops and gold rings and also cash of Rs. 50,000/- to the groom. It is further alleged that it was then also decided by the parties that additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be paid to the bridegroom by the father of the deceased in Diwali. Later on, due to mediation of some persons, the additional amount was reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. However, even this amount, it is further alleged, could not be paid by the father of the deceased.

(iii) Meanwhile, after the marriage, the deceased and accused No. 1 had moved away from the parental house of accused No. 1 occupied by the remaining accused persons for residing separately. This separate house was situated at Barshi Takli, some distance away from the place of the residence of the remaining accused persons at Mangrulpir. It appears that, there used to be quite frequent visits of the accused No. 1 and the deceased-wife to the parental house of the accused No. 1 and perhaps because of such visits, some discord started to occur in the marital relations between the accused No. 1 and the deceased. The relatives of the deceased alleged that deceased Rashmi used to be subjected to harassment consisting of denial of food and sarcastic remarks over failure of the father to pay the additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- as per the demand of the accused persons and accepted by the father of the deceased at the time of the marriage.

(iv) The incident, in the present case, has taken place on 23.07.2005 in the parental house of accused No. 1 at Mangrulpir. Precisely, the spot of incident was the bathroom attached to the house. In this bathroom, during night time, deceased became a victim of burn injuries. The burn injuries that she suffered were to the extent of 91%. The maternal relatives of the deceased saw something fishy in this incident and upon deliberation and making some inquiry they were convinced that all the accused persons were involved in and responsible for the suffering of burn injuries by the deceased. The deceased having been admitted to hospital succumbed to her injuries and this was also the circumstance, which made the suspicion expressed by the relatives of the deceased even stronger. A complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased with police. After registering offences, investigation was carried out and the accused persons were charge-sheeted.

(v) The accused were ultimately tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and also for offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On merits of the case, the learned trial Judge found the evidence to be deficient, inconsistent and self-contradictory and, therefore, found that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the offences with which they were charged in the case, by the judgment