The prosecution must prove charges of cruelty and dowry demand beyond reasonable doubt; vague allegations are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

1. In instant appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order passed by IIIrd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.139 of 2003, dated 27.04.2004, holding appellant husband guilty for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. In nutshell, prosecution version in trial court is that, deceased Shubhangi was married to appellant Sachin on 05.05.2002. After marriage, she went to cohabit with husband and in-laws, who resided jointly. Shubhangi was treated properly for a period of 2 to 3 months after marriage, but thereafter, accused nos. 1 to 4 subjected her to cruelty on petty counts. Shubhangi reported it to her father. She also reported about beating on account of demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for arranging Government job. On 23.03.2003, she went missing and her dead body was found in well. After funeral, PW1 Sukhdeo father lodged report, resulting into registration of crime and it being investigated by PW9 API Shinde.

Accused husband and in-laws were charge-sheeted for above offences and tried by learned III Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, who on appreciating the evidence acquitted accused nos.1, 3 and 4, but convicted only husband.

Hence, the instant appeal.

SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT

3. PW1 Sukhdeo in evidence at Exh.19 stated about marriage of deceased daughter with appellant on 05.05.2002. He stated that after marriage, she went to reside with husband and in- laws. She was properly treated for initial span of 2 to 3 months. Thereafter, accused nos.1 to 4 subjected her to cruelty on account of petty reasons. Whenever she came, she reported about it. He gave her understanding to tolerate. After December 2002, accused subjected her to cruelty by beating her and ask him to bring Rs.1,00,000/- for getting Government service for appellant. After December 2002, she had come four times and in every visits, she told about demand of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 23.03.2003, information was received that she was missing. After search her dead body was found inside the well. After funeral, he lodged report.

PW2 Raja brother-in-law of PW1 stated that, on 23.03.2003, he, complainant and brother of complainant Namdeorao undertook search of Shubhangi and her dead body was noticed in well. In paragraph no. 2 of examination-in-chief, he stated that, after 3 to 4 months, Shubhangi told him that accused subjected her cruelty on petty counts. During Sankrant of 2003, she told him that her husband Sachin received call for the interview for the post of Police Constable and for that accused were demanding Rs.1,00,000/- for getting service.

PW3 Dr. Kotekar, autopsy surgeon, who conducted post mortem and issued opinion that, cause of death was ‘pulmonary contusion with cerebropulmonary oedma with injury with scalp’.

PW4 Anil drew hand sketch map of spot Exh.43.

PW5 Sangita neighbour and childhood friend, deposed that, after marriage, on 2 to 3 occasions, when Shubhangi came to parents home, they both met. After 10 to 12 days of Sankrant of 2003, she told her that her husband had received recruitment call for the post of Police Constable and in order to secure employment as constable, accused nos.1 to 3 were asking to bring of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. Thereafter, they did not meet.

PW6 Archana sister stated that, in July 2002, when her sister came along with her husband at Badnapur, that time, she told her that for initial span of 1 or 2 months, immediately after marriage she was treated properly, but thereafter accused nos.1 to 4 started taunting. In Diwali of 2002, she reported taunting and subjecting her to cruelty on petty counts. During Sankrant of 2003, Shubhangi told that accused Sachin was demanding Rs.1,00,000/- for seeking job as Constable and he was asking her to bring it from her parents. Similar information was given on 23.02.2003.

PW7 Vasant, Employment Officer, testified that, he dispatched call letter to appellant for re