The prosecution proved the offence of 498(A) read with 34 of IPC against Accused Nos. 1 to 4. The trial Court rightly acquitted Original Accused No. 5 for the offence charged against him.

JUDGMENT

Surendra P. Tavade, J. - Both these appeals are arisen out of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, District- Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2009 dated 12th October 2011. Hence, both these appeals are taken together for hearing.

2. Original Accused No. 1 has preferred an appeal bearing No. 1470 of 2011. By the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2009, the Appellant (in 1470 of 2011) has been convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment, he was directed to undergo RI for two months. He along with Original Accused Nos. 2 to 4 have been also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 498(A) and sentenced to suffer RI for two years each and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, all of them have been directed to undergo RI for one month. But Original Accused Nos. 2 to 4 did not prefer an appeal against the said conviction order. The Appellant and other co-accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) read with 34 of IPC, similarly Original Accused No. 5 was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 302, 304(B) and 201 read with 34 of IPC. The State has preferred an appeal bearing No. 944 of 2012 and challenged the correctness of the above acquittal order passed by the Trial Court.

3. The facts, as are necessary for the decision of the appeal may briefly be stated thus:

The Informant- Narayan Sampat Wagh is resident of village Zadi, Taluka- Malegaon, District- Nashik. His second daughter i.e., deceased Manisha was married with the Appellant (Accused No. 1) on 20th May 2006. In the settlement of marriage the Informant had paid Rs.70,000/- as dowry and presented some articles, namely, T.V., Show-Case, cot, household-utensils and ornaments to the newly married couple as per the demand of in-laws of deceased. After marriage, Manisha was treated well for about six months. Thereafter, the Appellant (Accused No.1) along with his parents (Original Accused Nos. 2 and 4) and brother (Original Accused No. 3) started demanding Rs.1,00,000/- in order to purchase new auto-rickshaw. The fnancial condition of the Informant was not so sound to fulfill the demand of money.

4. After marriage, the Appellant and Manisha had come to the house of the Informant. The Appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- from the Informant. The Informant was not inclined to pay the money to the Appellant. But deceased Manisha requested the Informant to pay money to the Appellant (Original Accused No. 1) to avoid ill-treatment. At the request of Manisha, the Informant took sum of Rs.30,000/- as hand loan from his cousin, namely, Ashok Baburao Wagh, and paid it to the Appellant. The Appellant and Manisha stayed at the house of the Informant for couple of days. Thereafter, Manisha went to her matrimonial home. However, after some days the Informant asked the Appellant whether he had purchased the auto-rickshaw or not, to which he replied that auto-rickshaw cannot be purchased for Rs.30,000/-.

5. Manisha came to house of the Informant for delivery. She delivered a female child, namely, deceased Nikita. The Appellant had come to see newly born baby, at that time, he demanded Rs. 50,000/- to purchase auto-rickshaw, but the Informant showed his inability to pay the said amount. Thus, the Appellant became annoyed and left the Informant's house. Thereafter, Original Accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to see the Manisha's daughter, they also demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the Informant and then they went away. Manisha stayed in the Informant's house for couple of months after delivery. She was taken to matrimonial house by Original Accused No. 3. About three months thereafter, Manisha came to the house of the Informant and informed him that the Appellant and co-accused Nos. 2 to 4 and her cousin-brother-in-law, Accused No. 5 used to ill-treat her for