JUDGMENT :

(Abhay S. Waghwase, J.) :

1. By invoking the provisions under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the appellants herein are taking exception to the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2013, thereby convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for further two months.

Prosecution case in trial court

2. PW 2 Dilip Jogdand set law in motion by approaching Ambajogai Rural Police Station on 13.08.2013 informing that his daughter Kalpana was married to Pradip (accused no.3) on 10.05.2010. After marriage, his daughter went to reside with her husband Pradip, father-in-law Lalasaheb and mother-in-law Sagarbai. For initial period of six months everything was smooth but thereafter, husband and in-laws started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing tractor. It was duly informed by his daughter to him. There are allegations of being beaten by using stick, iron rod and wood. There were threats to kill her. Deceased had filed application before Women’s Dispute Redressal Forum, but consequently, the matter was settled and compromised. Thereafter, his daughter again went to co-habit with her husband and in-laws. However, in spite of giving undertaking, ill-treatment continued. Therefore, Kalpana was brought back for five months and then she again went to co-habit with husband. After a month and ten days, accused strangulated his daughter. Hence he lodged report which gave rise to registration of crime no. 96 of 2013 with Ambajogai Rural Police Station, District Beed, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A, 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. The above crime was registered and after investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed. Case came to be committed for trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, who after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded finding that all accused are responsible for death of Kalpana and thereby they were held guilty and stood convicted for above said offences.

4. All three appellants have now taken exception to the above judgment and order of conviction by preferring the instant appeal on various grounds raised in the appeal memo.

SUBMISSIONS

APPELLANTS :

5. In support of relief, learned Advocate for the appellants would submit that there was weak evidence before the trial court to hold accused persons guilty. It is pointed out that at the threshold, there is no evidence to show that parents-in-law i.e. accused nos. 1 and 2 resided with deceased and accused no.3 husband. There is no reliable and trustworthy evidence about alleged episode of strangulation. That, investigating machinery has not recorded statements of immediate neighbours. According to him, in absence of any evidence of involvement of all three accused in strangulation, learned trial court ought not to have held all of them guilty. He pointed out that there is no supporting medical evidence in this regard. Taking us through the evidence of the witnesses, he pointed out that it cannot be said for sure that there is involvement of parents-in-law also. Inviting our attention to the testimony of PW5 Kalawati, it is submitted that it seems that prosecution is heavily relying on the testimony of said witness. But according to him it is doubtful whether she was in a position to see as to who all were present in the house and who all strangulated deceased. According to him, this witness is a got up witness.

6. Learned Advocate for the appellants further submits that when there was no direct eye witness and case being entirely based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution was duty bound to prove each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, here the chain of circumstances is not