JUDGMENT

Swapna Joshi, J. - Criminal Appeal No.652/2006 has been preferred by appellant -Pramod, who is the husband of deceased-Deepa, against the judgment and order dated 31st October 2006 delivered by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-6 & ASJ Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 467/2005 convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "accused" under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer SI for one month.

Criminal Revision No.315/2006 has been preferred by the father of the deceased, namely, Shivpal Pardeshi against the State and all the four accused who were acquitted by learned trial Judge u/S. 498-A and Section 304-B, 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.

2. Brief facts of the case may be summarized as under:-

The marriage of Deepa (deceased) with ac-cused-Pramod was solemnized on 05.12.2004 as per the Hindu customs and rituals. During tilak ceremony an amount of R. 5051/- and some articles were given. Four days after the marriage when Deepa came to her parental home, she informed to her parents that her in-laws were making demand of Hero Honda motorcyle, gold chain and a colour TV. PW1-Shivpal, the complainant and father of deceased told Deepa that he would talk to her in-laws. In March, 2005 i.e. one day before the festival of colours i.e. Holi, Deepa visited her parental home along with her husband. At that time, she informed her father that she was subjected to harassment at the hands of her in-laws for want of above-referred objects of desire. After four to five days, her husband and in-laws visited the house of PW1 to fetch Deepa. At that time, PW1 gave one gold chain weighing 12 grams and new clothes to the accused-Pramod. In April, 2005, Deepa again visited her parental home and told PW1 that her husband was unable to maintain her and was pressing her for doing a job. On 27.5.2005 Deepa along with the accused suddenly came to the house of PW1 and at that time accused -Pramod demanded vehicle and TV from PW1. The accused further said that if he was not in a position to fulfill his demand then he should build two rooms for him. Deepa informed to her father that her mother-in-law had asked her to bring an amount of Rs.1,50,000 from PW1 which was spent in the marriage, otherwise she should permanently reside at her parental home. On 30.5.2005 at about 11.30 a.m., PW1 received a phone call from the house of Deepa that she was not keeping good health. When PW1 went to the house of Deepa she was dead. PW1 then lodged the complaint against accused-Pramod and in-laws of Deepa.

3. At the relevant time, PW9 PSI Vidya-sagaar Shrimanwar was attached to Koradi Police Station. On the basis of report of PW1, he registered the offence and arrested the accused on the same day. PW9 recorded the statements of relevant witnesses. On 31.5.2005 PW6, PSI-Gulab Wadke, visited the place of the incident and recorded the spot panchnama. One PSI Mamore (not examined) had sealed one almirah at the time of recording the spot panchnama on 10.6.2005. PW6 broke opened the seal of the almirah and seized one glass bottle 375 ml. capacity containing 75 ml. liquid. Accordingly, seizure panchnama was prepared (Exh.33). The said bottle was sent to CA for analysis and the CA reports were secured (Exhs. 61 and 62). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC. Since the case was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed. The defence of the accused was of total denial and no witnesses were examined on their behalf. The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence and hearing both sides, convicted the appellant and acquitted the other accused, as aforesaid.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, at length. With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. M