The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the basic ingredients of an offense and the need for concrete evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 01.04.2021 passed in Sessions Case No.87 of 2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant (accused no.1) for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of 25,000/-, in default to undergo further simple ? imprisonment for six months.

The prosecution case, in short, is as follow:

2. Informant-Suresh Khobragade, who is father of deceased Shefali lodged report on 19.06.2016 against the appellant and remaining four accused. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused nos.2,3 and 5. Accused no.4 died during pendency of the trial and therefore prosecution abated against her. Acquitted accused no.2 is the brother of the appellant. Acquitted accused no.3 is the brother-in-law of the appellant. Deceased accused no.4 is the mother of the appellant. Acquitted accused no.5 is the sister of the appellant. There was love affair between the appellant and deceased Shefali. Deceased Shefali and appellant on 05.06.2016 by maintaining utmost secrecy performed the marriage at Markanda temple. The appellant and the informant are the resident of Gadchiroli. After marriage, deceased Shefali went to stay with the appellant at the house of Pallavi (accused no.5). Informant and his family members did not like the marriage and therefore severed all ties with deceased Shefali.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that after 4 to 5 months of the marriage, the appellant and the acquitted accused started ill-treating deceased Shefali. The appellant and his family members told the deceased that if her father had performed her marriage, he would have spent near about five to six lakh rupees. The love marriage has saved the money of the father of deceased Shefali. Therefore, they insisted deceased Shefali to bring five to six lakh rupees from her father as dowry. The appellant and his family members wanted to construct upper floor of the house therefore they needed money. Deceased Shefali was caught in precarious position inasmuch as she had married with appellant against wish of her parents. One day, deceased Shefali made a phone call to her mother and informed her that the appellant and other accused are making demand of five to six lakh rupees towards dowry. She further informed that on account of this demand she was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty. On 27.05.2016, the mother of the deceased called her to the house of her neighbour Lalita Sonpipre. On 27.05.2016, there was birthday celebration of the son of Lalita Sonpipre. Under the pretext of attending birthday, deceased Shefali came to the house of Lalita Sonpipre. Mother of the deceased and deceased Shefali met there. The deceased told her mother that her in-laws are demanding five to six lakh rupees towards dowry for construction of upper floor of the house. On that count she was subjected to mental and physical harassment. She narrated this in presence of Lalita Sonpipre. After sometime, husband of deceased went there and picked-up deceased Shefali with him to his house. On 29.05.2016, the dead body of deceased Shefali was found in the village pond. The police conveyed this information to the informant and his family members. They went to the hospital and saw the dead body.

4. The appellant on 29.05.2016 at about 15:00 hours went to the Police Station and lodged the missing report of deceased Shefali. However, by that time, dead body of deceased Shefali was found in the pond. On the basis of this report, a Merg bearing No.30/2016 was registered. The police recovered the dead body of Shefali and performed inquest panchanama of the dead body. The police forwarded dead body of Shefali to Government Hospital for postmortem. The Medical Officer on the basis of observations at the time of postmortem reserved his opinion subject to the viscera report.

5. T