JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. Dissatisfied by the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner dated 04-02-2002 thereby convicting appellants herein for offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), surviving appellant nos. 2 and 3 Sahebrao and Ushabai respectively, by invoking Section 374 of Cr.P.C. have assailed above judgment.

BRIEF CASE OF PROSECUTION

2. In brief, it is the case of prosecution that deceased Alkabai, daughter of informant PW-1 Sitaram, was married to deceased appellant no. 1 Ravsaheb and she went to cohabit with him at Bhokarbari. Everything went smooth for a year after the marriage. Husband and appellant no. 2, father-in-law purchased a Jeep on loan and therefore, they asked deceased Alkabai to arrange an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from her parents for discharge of loan. Deceased promptly reported her parents, but her father PW-1 Sitaram expressed his inability on the ground that he was already heavily indebted as a result of performing marriage of Alkabai. Whenever husband and father-in-law of deceased Alkabai went to drop her or bring her back from her maternal house, they put up above demand. According to prosecution, getting fed up of harassment for failure to meet the demand, Alkabai consumed poison and while undergoing treatment she succumbed, resulting into FIR by PW-1 Sitaram, father deceased.

PW-5 Rajput (API), who was entrusted with investigation, carried out the same and on gathering sufficient evidence chargesheeted husband and in-laws of deceased Alkabai.

On conclusion of trial, learned trial Court by its order dated 04-02-2002 held deceased husband (appellant no. 1), father-in-law (appellant no. 2), mother-in-law (appellant no. 3), deceased paternal aunt of accused no. 1 (appellant no. 4) guilty of offence under Sections 306 r/w 34 and 498-A r/w 34 of the IPC. Original accused nos. 4 and 5 were acquitted from both the charges.

Consequently, only appeal of surviving appellant nos. 2 and 3 i.e. parents-in-law remains for consideration.

3. Being first appellate court, while exercising powers under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court undertook the exercise of re-examining, re-appreciating and re-analyzing the evidence before the trial Court to ascertain whether the findings and conclusion reached at is just, legal and proper.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellant:

4. The sum and substance of arguments advanced by learned Counsel for appellants is that there is apparently weak and fragile evidence on behalf of prosecution. He pointed out that the fundamental principle of law regarding primary burden to be on prosecution has not been discharged by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, in the entire evidence, necessary ingredients for attracting both the charges are patently missing. He took this Court through the entire prosecution evidence and would submit that apart from inconsistent versions of very parents of deceased, there is nothing to indicate illegal demand and further ill treatment or harassment to deceased on its non-fulfillment. That witnesses have improvised their versions and their testimonies are full of material omissions, which are got proved through Investigating Officer, but according to him, learned trial Court has overlooked the same.

5. He would next submit that accusations are that deceased committed suicide by consuming poison, but there is no evidence in that regard. He pointed out that Autopsy surgeon has also opined death to be due to pulmonary edema and there is no clear medical finding regarding death to be due to consumption of poison.

6. He also criticized prosecution case on the ground that alleged occurrence is of 26-07-1998. That investigating machinery has come across dying declaration of deceased wherein she has not attributed any role to appellants but inspite of Investigating Officer admitting to that extent, it is tried to be suppressed by prosecutio