The court affirmed that consistent testimonies of the deceased's brothers established the elements of cruelty and dowry demand under Section 498-A IPC, justifying the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this revision, exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 21.09.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2011 arising out of judgment and order dated 10.11.2011 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge-3, Latur in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2011 recording guilt of revisionist for offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that, revisionist was charge-sheeted by Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur along with accused no.2 and both were tried for offence punishable under sections 306 and 498-A read with section 34 of IPC. Upon trial, accused no.2 was acquitted for both the charges, however, present revisionist was alone held guilty, but only for offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC.

3. He further took this court through the evidence and submitted that, the essence of 498-A is cruelty in the backdrop of demand. Here, there was no demand. That, there was cohabitation between revisionist and wife for almost 16 years and they also had two grown-up children. That, there was no previous complaint of any nature. That, subsequently, allegations were levelled about illicit relations and extra marital affair with accused no2, but same was not substantiated. Learned counsel submitted that, there is no independent witness and only interested witnesses are examined. That, there are omnibus allegations of demand of Rs.50,000/- for business, but there is no further clarification for what business there was demand. He pointed out that, even there is no evidence from the prosecution side about cruelty or ill treatment.

4. Learned counsel for revisionist further pointed out that FIR is by brother. That, there was said to be demand with parents, but neither of them are examined. That, there was weak evidence and no corroboration to the evidence of brother. Therefore, according to him, there is erroneous appreciation and hence he prays to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned judgment.

5. In answer to above, learned APP would submit that, two brothers of deceased are examined by prosecution. That, they both are consistent and corroborating each other on material count i.e. on account of demand, ill treatment, beating and above all maintaining extra marital affair in spite of having two children. That, there is admission to that extent in statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. That, evidence of both brothers have remained unshaken. Learned APP pointed out that, just before suicide, there was said to be beating. Therefore, necessary ingredients for attracting section 498-A of IPC being available in the evidence, it is submitted that, both, learned trial court as well as appellate court committed no error in recording the guilt and hence he prays to dismiss the revision.

6. Here, after hearing both sides and on going through the evidence, it is emerging that, prosecution was launched by Gandhi Chowk Police Station against present revisionist Balu and one Anjali for offence punishable under sections 306 and 498-A read with section 34 of IPC. Papers show that, on oral evidence of five witnesses and other documentary evidence, trial was conducted and by judgment and order dated 10.11.2011 learned Assistant Sessions Judge-3, Latur acquitted present revisionist and accused no.2 from charge under section 306 read with section 34 of IPC. Accused no.2 Anjali was acquitted from charge under section 498-A of IPC also. Present revisionist, who is husband of deceased Vandana, was held guilty for offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and accordingly sentenced to suffer three years imprisonment and to pay fine. Such judgment of Assistant Sessions Judge seems to be assailed by filing criminal appeal before Sessions Court, Latur bearing Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2011 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 21.09.2016 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order of learned Assistant