The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and in the presence of doubt about the credibility of the case of the prosecution, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal, challenge is to the Judgment and order, dated 06.07.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal whereby the appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306, 506 (II) and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [for short ‘Dowry Act’]. The sentences awarded to him on different counts are as follows:-

“(a) Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(b) Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rs.Two Thousand only), in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(c) Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rs.Two Thousand only), in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(d) Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rs. Two Thousand only), in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Section 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code.

(e) Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rs. Two Thousand only), in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.”

2. The facts, leading to this appeal, are as follows:

In this case, the crime has been registered against the appellant on the report of Sangita Wankhede (PW-1), who happens to be the sister of the deceased. The appellant and the deceased got married on 02.05.2013. The deceased for sometime cohabited with the appellant. For initial three months after the marriage, there was no ill-treatment. It is stated that the appellant and his relatives started demanding Rs.50,000/- from the parents of the deceased to buy Hero Honda Motorbike. The deceased disclosed this fact to her parents when she came to her parents house. The second reason for ill-treatment, narrated by the deceased to her parents, was the allegation of the appellant of her illicit relations with his brother. The deceased disclosed that on this ground the appellant would beat her. The deceased disclosed ill-treatment on this ground to her mother-in-law. However, her mother-in-law, instead of admonishing the appellant, scolded the deceased. On the occasion of her first Diwali, she came to her parents house. She narrated continuous ill-treatment meted out to her by the appellant and his parents. The parents of the deceased tried to convince the appellant and gave an understanding to him, when he went to fetch back the deceased from her parents house. After Diwali festival of the year 2013, there was no change in the attitude of the appellant and his parents. The appellant reiterated the demand of Rs.50,000/- from her parents to purchase a Hero Honda Motorbike. When the ill-treatment became unbearable, the deceased lodged report at Parva Police Station. The appellant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

3. It is stated that after few months compromise took place between the appellant and the deceased. In view of the compromise, on 01.04.2014, the prayer made by them to compound the offence was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ghatanji. After compromise and disposal of the criminal case against the appellant, she went back to the house of the appellant. It is stated that again the appellant and his mother started ill-treatment to the deceased on account of failure of her parents to meet their demand of Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that the appellant had illicit relations with his sister-in-law. The deceased on the date of the incident i.e. 14.05.2014 saw the appellant and his sister-in-law in compromising position. She got annoyed. She disclosed this fact to her mother-in-law, so that the mother-in-law would admonish the appellant. Ho