JUDGMENT

R.C. Chavan, J.—This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.10,000/- or in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for further period of three months, imposed upon the appellant on the conclusion of trial of Sessions Case No.133 of 1995, before him. By the said judgment the learned Judge had acquitted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted all the other co-accused of all the offences for which they were charged.

2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:-

Victim Sangita was married to appellant on 29.4.1994. There were grievances of the appellant’s family about Sangita’s inability to perform domestic work. It was alleged that when Sangita had been to her parent’s house for festival of Sankranti in January, 1995, she reported that the appellant and his relations had asked Sangita to get a sum of Rs.20,000/- for purchasing a Colour Television Set and Rs.40,000/- for purchasing a tractor. The victim alleged that she was ill-treated because of this reason. The victim was not sent to her parent’s house for the festival of Gudi Padwa in March, 1995. On 24th April, 1995, the victim died as a result of drowning in well. Police had been informed and after performing inquest, they caused the dead body to be sent for postmortem examination. On a report by victim’s father, offence was registered and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, police recorded the statement of witnesses and on completion of investigation sent the charge sheet to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Niphad, District: Nashik, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Nashik.

3. The learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik to whom the case was made over, charged the appellant and his family members of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian penal Code. Since they pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. After considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses in the light of defence of denial, the learned Judge acquitted of other accused of all the offences charged and also acquitted the appellant of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted and sentenced the appellant of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian penal Code as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both I have gone through the evidence on record.

5. P.W.1 Vasant, the victim’s father, and P.W.3 Janabai, the victim’s mother, stated about the unlawful demands allegedly made by the appellant’s family and the ill-treatment alleged meted out to their daughter. In the F.I.R. at Exh.22 proved by P.W.1 Vasant, it was stated that the unlawful demand of sum of Rs. 20,000/- for purchasing T.V. set and Rs. 40,000/- for purchasing tractor were conveyed to them by their daughter when she came for the festival of Sankranti, i.e. 8 months after marriage. However, in their evidence both these witnesses stated that the victim had conveyed to them about 3 to 4 months after the marriage that there was such unlawful demand. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this discrepancy is minor, in cases which rest on this type of evidence about demands and ill-treatment surfacing after victim’s death these inconsistencies would be material. There was no reason for PW1 Vasant or PW3 Janabai to state that the demands were made three months after the marriage.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that tho