SOPAN BHAUSAHEB GUNJAL, Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard rival arguments at length on earlier dates on the present Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellants/orig.accused Nos.1,3 & 4 challenging the judgment and order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge3, Nashik in Sessions Case No.156 of 2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/each, in default to suffer RI for two months each. For the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC, they were sentenced to suffer RI for seven years each. For the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, they were sentenced to suffer RI for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ each, in default to suffer RI for two months each. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the said judgment and order, original accused No.2 was acquitted of all the charges. The State has not preferred appeal against the acquittal of said original accused No.2.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under : Victim Kalpana and accused No.1 Sopan got married with each other on 2.5.2005. Appellants/accused Nos.3 & 4 are the parents of appellant/accused No.1. Acquitted original accused No.2 is the brother of appellant/accused No.1. PW3 Pandharinath Ugale is the father of victim Kalpana. Agricultural lands of said complainant PW3 Pandharinath and of the family of accused, situate adjacent to each other at Sulewadi, Taluka Sinnar, District Nashik. So also family of the accused was cultivating the land of said complainant PW3 Pandharinath for years together on lease, and accordingly their relations were cordial. Due to such acquaintance, marriage of Kalpana was fixed with appellant No.1 and it was so performed in May, 2005. After marriage, deceased Kalpana started residing in the family of appellants at her matrimonial house which situates in the agricultural land of the appellants and situates adjacent to the agricultural land of her father Pandharinath (PW3).

(3.) Initially after marriage Kalpana was treated well. However, after one month or so the quarrels started on account of demand of Rs.2 lakhs from father of victim Kalpana. Apparently said demand was for purchase of motorcycle and tractor. On this count, Kalpana was being illtreated and harassed by all the appellants. At times, Kalpana was beaten. Kalpana had narrated such treatment to her parents and other relatives whenever she used to meet them.